2016 (10) TMI 1418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalties of Rs. 50,20,863/- and Rs. 62,97,810/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer vide separate orders dated 30.01.2013 in both assessment years, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short ' the Act' . 2. We come to relevant facts first. This assessee is a company providing software services and other related business(es). It filed returns on 27.11.2003 and 01.11.2004 stating incomes of Rs.13,03,30,257/- and Rs. Nil respectively. The Assessing Officer framed regular assessment on 15.12.2005 and 27.12.2006 disallowing /adding two claims of travelling expenses amounting to Rs.1,26,88,612/- and Rs.1,67,98,984/- followed by the other head of upward adjustments of interest on advances not charged to the tune of Rs. 9,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case for A.Y.2002-03 ITA No.2050/Ahd/2008 decided on 19.10.2012 has already deleted Section 271(1)(c) penalty arising from identical travelling expenses disallowance. The same factual position continues before this tribunal as well in the impugned assessment year. The Revenue neither points out any exception on facts nor law so far as the relevant facts on the issue of travelling expenses claim in these two assessment orders are concerned. We adopt judicial consistency in this factual backdrop and find no reason to interfere in the CIT(A)'s order deleting penalty on the first issue of travelling expenses disallowances in the two assessment years before us. The Revenue's first identical substantive ground in these two appeals fails accordin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the Transfer Pricing Report submitted to the AO/TPO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is noted that in the Form 3CEB the settlement advances were disclosed as an international transaction under the head reimbursements at actuals. It is further noted that the appellant had provided all details pertaining to the advance and there is no concealment of facts or figures on behalf of the appellant. It was a mere claim which was not accepted by the AO/TPO and upward adjustment by treating the interest as the addition was made. Therefore, there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the appellant and in these circumstances the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant did not disclose the international transactions, the quantum and the basis of not making any upward adjustment in the Transfer Pricing Report and the AO subsequently discovered that these transactions were not disclosed and some addition was made on that basis. The appellant demonstrated that the transactions were dealt with for the Transfer Pricing study in accordance with the provisions contained in section 92C and the same were in good faith and the basis of computation was on the basis of due diligence. The appellant has therefore, explained the bonafides and accordingly, has demonstrated the 'reasonable cause' for not making any upward adjustment related to that transaction. The explanation 7 to sec. 271(1)(c) is, therefore, no....