TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's penalty appeal dismissed as transfer pricing addition deemed debatable under Section 271(1)(c)</h1> <h3>THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Versus M/s GLOBAL VANTEDGE PVT. LTD.</h3> Delhi HC dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging Tribunal's deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty related to Rs. ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) under Section 92C - scope of debatable issue - ITAT deleted penalty - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the overall circumstances, the Tribunal’s reasoning that the question was debatable (more so since the original amounts added were reduced by the CIT(A) and further affirmed by the Tribunal) is reasonable. In the circumstances, no question of law arises. The Delhi High Court, through Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and A. K. Chawla, dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the Tribunal's deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty related to an addition of Rs. 83,88,635/- made during the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Section 92C and Rule 10B. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by ignoring Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c). However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the issue was debatable, especially since the original addition was reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal. The Court held that 'no question of law arises,' and dismissed the appeal and pending application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
