Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s New Delhi Television Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-13 (1) , New Delhi And Vice-Versa

2018 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT DELHI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition relating to ESOP expenses - Held that:- It is noticed that the addition relating to ESOP expenses has been deleted and relevant findings are given in para 13 of the aforesaid referred to order [2016 (8) TMI 821 - ITAT DELHI]. Thus no merit in the appeal of the department. Accordingly, we confirm the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) - Held that:- We restore the issue relating to levy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

N. K. Saini, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and department are directed against the order dated 27.05.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi. 2. The grounds raised in the assessee s appeal read as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Ld.CIT(A)] erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO on account of Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act in the impugned penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unting to ₹ 94,16,785/-. 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of Ld. AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is incorrect in view of the explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, thus, deserves to be deleted. 1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the action of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of Ld. AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified and deserves to be deleted. The above grounds of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns of Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering that the assessee had made a claim which is incorrect in law and the explanation of the assessee is neither substantiated nor shown to be bonafide? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tment is in appeal against the deletion of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 02.11.2017 declaring Nil income. However, the assessment was framed by the AO at an income of ₹ 15,01,72,110/- by making the following additions /disallowances: (i) Disallowance of ESOP expenses of ₹ 21,28,41,993/- (ii) Disallowance of software expenses of & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ii) Uphold the addition of AO/TPO on issue no. (iii), (iv) Directed the AO to verify the b/f losses and unabsorbed depreciation from the records and give set off of such losses. 6. The AO asked the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied, since there was no response from the assessee s side. The AO completed the penalty proceedings ex-parte and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO held that the assessee had concealed and also furnishe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. 189 Taxman 322. The ld. CIT(A) also directed the AO to recompute the penalty on account of additions made as per TP adjustment u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. 8. Now both the parties are in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the additions on the basis of which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO was a subject matter of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that the addition relating to ESOP expenses has been deleted and relevant findings are given in para 13 of the aforesaid referred to order dated 17.08.2016 which read as under: 13. In any event, in view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biocon Ltd. which is binding on us this issue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudicatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version