TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: - 1. Ground No.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Income tax Officer -10(3)(1) ('AO') of levying the penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition amounting to Rs. 2,06,24,199/- based on the findings of the transfer pricing officer in its order dated 22 November 2012 issued under section 92CA(3) of the Act; 2. Ground No.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition of Rs. 2,06,24,199/- made to the income of the Appellant, based on findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer, would be deemed to represent income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of international transactions under section 92C of the Act and hence no penalty could be levied as provided in Explanation 7 to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 6. Ground No.6 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that the determination of the arm's length price is a subjective exercise and not an exact science and hence, no penalty can be levied merely on acceptance/rejection of certain comparables, which would be a debatable issue; 7. Ground No.7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act would apply since the Appellant had made a bogus claim as per its original return and failed to provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the ALP with respect to the international transactions of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was initiated and the Assessing Officer levied the penalty in sum of Rs. 2,06,24,199/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirm the penalty, therefore, the assessee has filed present appeal before us. All the issues are in connection with confirmation of the penalty in sum of Rs. 2,06,24,199/- based upon the finding of the TPO by virtue of order dated 22/11/2012 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. 4. At the very outset the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee has under taken a transfer pricing study and applied TNMM as most appropriate method and identified '14' comparables and wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (P.) Ltd.v. Assessment. CIT, Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai (ITA No. 193/Mum/2013) dated 10 December 2014. After excluding the above said 4 companies, the margin would be approximate the margin assessed by the assessee in view of the 14 companies working of which has been given by the assessee to the TPO, therefore, in the said circumstances there is no any concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars if any hence the penalty is not leviable in accordance with the law. It is also specifically argued that the legal fees was not allowed whereas Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 7098/Mum/2012 and CO. No.37/Mum/2012 has allowed the expenses of legal fee and if the same has been allowed then in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OP/TC % (AY 2009-10) 3 Choksi Laboratories Ltd 22.77 % 4 ICRA management Consulting Services ltd -2.78 % 5 I D C (India) Ltd 9.99 % 6 Indus Technical & Financial Consultants Ltd 7.95 % 7 Rites Ltd (Seg) 29.27 % 8 Technicom-Chemie (India) Ltd 2.51% 9 Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt Co Ltd 26.89% 10 WAPCOS Ltd (Seg) 25.87% Arithmetic Mean 16.85% And the TPO assessed the Arithmetic Mean @ 16.85%. It is now well settled that the government companies are not good comparables to the private companies and In this regard we also find support of law settled in the case of CIT,3 v. ThyssenKrupp Industries India (P.) Ltd. (ITA No. 2218 of 2013) (Mumbai- High Court) dated 28 March, 2016, Pr. CIT-4 v. Inte....