DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5678/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 March 2023AY 2005-062 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied at this juncture as the quantum issue is to be decided afresh. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings after the assessment is concluded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. A co-ordinate bench had previously set aside the quantum issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh benchmarking of international transactions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the leviability of penalty when the underlying quantum addition is set aside for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also considered the impact of a co-ordinate bench's order on the penalty proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 13.12.2022Pronounced: 10.03.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 01.08.2016.

2.

Vide order dated 11.10.2022 in and ITA No. 5472/Del/2013 for the A.Y. 2015-16, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT set aside the quantum issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for benchmarking the International transaction separately, segment wise with suitable comparables and decide the issue afresh. Hence, no penalty can be leviable at this juncture. The AO is at liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings on conclusion of the assessment as directed by the Tribunal in the order dated 11.10.2022.

2 Whirlpool of India Ltd. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/03/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →