Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 03.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2014-15. ii) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067868221(1), dated 22.08.2024, passed against the penalty order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 04.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14. iii) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067868009(1), dated 22.08.2024, passed against the penalty order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2011-12. iv) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067867894(1), dated 22.08.2024, passed against the penalty order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i.e. BRFL Italia SRL out of the advances so received by it from BFRL. Assessee had also given share application money during the year. 4.1. Assessment order dated 28.09.2018 was passed under section 143(3) rws 147 with total assessed income at Rs. 42,47,76,154/- by making transfer pricing adjustment of this stated amount towards charging of interest at SBI PLR @ 300 bps on the advances given and LIBOR + 200 bps on the share application money given. Matter was carried to DRP - 1, Mumbai and addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer were confirmed by DRP vide its order dated 22.12.2017. In its order, DRP gave a direction that transfer pricing adjustment on share application money should also be done at SBI PLR @ 300 bps. 4.2. Assessee con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d any security for the same. No written agreement concerning the loan has been filed with any of the authorities. No other document is on record fortifying the claim of the assessee. Hence, assessee justification of granting interest free loan is simply ipse-dixit. Assessee's plea is that interest was not charged on loan provided to AE as the sums were received from the holding company on which, no interest has been paid. This has rightly been rejected by the authorities below. The authorities below have also rejected the assessee's contention that there is no transfer of profits from the assessee to the AEs that the AE is into losses and hence, there is no shifting of profits. That assessee had provided loans to business expediency .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on application of bank rates in India will throw open the issue of assessee not incurring any expenditure on the funds for advancing the loan. As we have already held this issue is not to be considered for the computation of arm's length price for an international transaction here." 4.3. On giving effect to the above referred order of coordinate bench, transfer pricing adjustment was recomputed at Rs. 8,76,33,900/-. Thereafter, impugned penalty order was passed on 15.03.2022 levying penalty of Rs. 2,97,86,762/- under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.4. According .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of inaccurate particulars of income, fact of the matter is that assessee had disclosed necessary facts required for computation of total income in the return of income filed for the year. 5.1. It is also a fact on record that appeal by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on the quantum assessment has been admitted on substantial question of law and is pending for disposal. Admission of appeal by the Hon'ble High Court indicates that the question is an arguable point in law on which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates