Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 537 - AT - Income TaxEnhancement u/s 92CA - “MAP” margin - as per assessee mutual agreement procedure “MAP” resolution has already attained finality qua its international transactions with its overseas associated enterprises ‘AEs’ in USA - HELD THAT:- The assessee’s international transactions in these three assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 covered under the above MAP are to the extent of 94.7%, to 96% and 93% forming subject matter of the ALP in these assessment years. Coming to the remaining international transactions with associated enterprises in other jurisdictions i.e. Singapore etc., the Revenue fails to dispute that even the Transfer Pricing Officer has not drawn any distinction qua the “ALP” in all the substantive grounds raised herein. We thus hold that the “MAP” margin of 15.49%, 15.34% and 15.76% deserves to be applied qua the remaining portion of non-USA based international transactions as well. Disallowance u/s 37 - Expenditure on improvements to leasehold premises - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in Revenue’s stand disallowing assessee’s claim in view of (i) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Fin Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 622 - DELHI HIGH COURT]; (ii) Amway India Enterprises vs. DCIT [2008 (11) TMI 432 - ITAT DELHI] and (iiii) CIT vs. Amway India Enterprises [2011 (11) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] holding that such improvements are in the nature of revenue expenditure only. The impugned disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition on enhancement in its income on the ground that it had failed to disclose the correct figures - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of CIT(A)’s lower appellate order in quantum proceedings that the corresponding mistake in omitting to adopt correct figures in assessee’s form 3 CEB had been made at the TPO’s end which stood admitted in his letter dated 7.2.2011 than involving any concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income at taxpayer’s behest. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from revenue side during the course of hearing. We thus accept assessee’s instant penalty appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty.
|