TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. We shall first take up the appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 as the standard one for the sake of facts. ITA No.2447/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are extracted as under : "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)- 13, Pune was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 11,03,966/ - on account of adjustment made to the international transaction. 3. Whether the CIT(A)-13, Pune erred in not appreciating all the facts of the case and not appreciating the meaning, tests and requirements enumerated fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by the Transfer Pricing Officer that the comparable companies selected by the assessee were not from identical/ same activities and financial data of which was not available on Prowess and Capitaline database and the assessee could not prove anything in its support. The facts have been upheld and the assessee has been blamed for its actions by the Hon'ble CIT(A)-IT/TP, Pune vide his order dated 31/07/2013. Thus, it is evident that the assessee had not determined arms length price in 'Good faith' and with 'Due diligence'. 7. Whether the CIT(A)-13, Pune grossly erred in not appreciating the specially provided Explanation -7 to section 271 that shifts the onus on the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....s.147, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 11,03,966/. AO opined that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income and committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved with the deletion of penalty, the Revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO dutifully and prayed for confirming the penalty levied by the AO. 5. Before us, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the TPO was held as invalid by the Tribunal by virtue of appeal in ITA No. 1801/PUN/2013 & Co No. 97/PUN/2014, dated 31-01-2017. Thus, the addition of Rs. 85....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of jurisdiction. We find it relevant to extract the finding given by the Tribunal below (Para 20 & 21 of the order of the Tribunal) : "20. As referred to by us in the paras hereinabove the factual aspects of the present case before us are identical to the facts before the Tribunal in Maximize Learning (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) and hence the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Further, we also apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. XL India Business Services (P) Ltd. (supra). In view thereof, we hold that when no assessment proceedings were pending in relation to the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer was prec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. Thus, the penalty levied has no legs to stand. Considering the above stated position, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. We shall now take up the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2008-09. ITA No.2448/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 8. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that the TPO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 1,64,21,243/- to the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. In the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and eventually levied penalty of Rs. 43,91,583/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the assessment order dated 28-02-2012 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. Therefore, the same is reproduced as under : "4. Since the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income by furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, I am satisfied that it has committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) have, therefore, been initiated separately." 11.1 We also perused the penalty order dated 31-03-2015 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. The said satisfaction reads as u....