TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... faith and exercised due diligence while conducting the transfer pricing study and determining the arm's length price 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 Expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated as capital expenses. However, the income of the assessee was assessed as Nil. Since the TPO has made the adjustment of Rs. 2,06,24,199/- 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of the Novartis Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Range 7(1), Mumbai (ITA No. 7643/Mum/2012) dated 30 April 2015, Shell India Markets (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly the TPO rejected the working of the assessee and selected '10' comparables whose names are hereby mentioned below: S.No. Name of the company 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 th....