TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment order in this case was passed u/s 143(3) read with sections 144/145 of the Act on 24-12-2008 determining total income at Rs. 73,04,65,590/- as against the declared income of Rs. 43,04,85,517/-. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty with reference to certain additions. The assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A), who preferred to delete the penalty. The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of penalty. Challenge to the deletion of the penalty is in respect of certain items of additions/disallowances, which we will take up for consideration and decision. 3. The first item on which the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty is transfer pricing addition of Rs. 15.58 crore, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Tribunal in its order passed in quantum proceedings, it can be seen that the assessee computed the ALP of the international transaction as per the manner prescribed in the section. Such computation was done in good faith and due diligence. Simply because now there remains some difference in the manner of determination of the ALP, it cannot be held that the assessee either concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We, therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty on this issue. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 178 TTJ 490 (Delhi). Respectfully following the precedent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that the authorities below have made disallowance primarily on ad hoc basis. Even in respect of certain specific expenses for which the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal sustained the disallowances, the reason is not the concealment by the assessee or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars by the assessee, but non-availability of relevant evidence to substantiate the claims. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that no fault can be found with the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty on addition towards disallowance out of Miscellaneous expenses. 9. The last item on which penalty has been imposed is addition towards expenses on premises which was made by the AO at Rs. 66,16,087/- and confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the finding of Tribunal. The facts of this case are quite close to the present case. Here also, the assessee could not substantiate its claim of interest payment because presenting books of account were beyond its control. The AO made disallowance of interest at a higher level, which got reduced to a lower level on estimate basis in the appellate proceedings. In my view, there is no qualitative difference between the determination of income on `estimate' basis and disallowance of expenses on `estimate' basis in so far as imposition of penalty is concerned. 12. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 221 ITR 110 (Guj) holding that where income is assessed on estimate basis after ....