DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2620/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 April 2021AY 2010-114 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 since the underlying transfer pricing addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, there was no justification for the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for transfer pricing additions. The penalty was based on a transfer pricing adjustment that was later deleted by the Tribunal in a separate appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the transfer pricing addition, on which it was levied, has been deleted by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 92CA(3),Section 10A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, VP & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Kulthe &, Shri Siddhesh Chaugule
For Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan
Hearing: 29.04.2021Pronounced: 29.04.2021

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 18.08.2017 pa*ssed by the ld. CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune in relation to the assessment year 2010-11, deleting penalty of Rs.74,87,580/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of designing and development of chip, integrated circuits and storage components and providing allied services for its holding company AMCC, USA. The assessee filed return declaring total income at Rs. Nil and book profit of Rs.2,25,12,625/- u/s.115JB of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction u/s.10A of the Act at Rs.2.05 crore on the income of its STPI unit. Because of certain international transactions entered into by the assessee, the AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the arm‟s length price of the international transactions. The TPO passed order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act proposing transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,74,67,960/-. In the first appeal, the transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.2,20,29,573/-. The Assessing Officer invoked Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs.74,87,850/- on the amount of transfer pricing addition sustained in the first appeal. The ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

1.

3. We have heard the rival contentions through Virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the transfer pricing addition sustained by the ld. CIT(Appeal) at Rs.2.20 crore, which forms the bedrock of the penalty, came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide order (ITA No.1250/PUN/2015) dated 24.11.2017, the Tribunal has deleted the said addition. A copy of the order has been placed at page 5 onwards of the paper book. The AO, while giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, has determined total income of the assessee at Rs.36,117/-. Since the very foundation of imposition of penalty, being the transfer pricing addition of Rs.2.20 crore, does not survive any more, we do not find any reason to disturb the view taken by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is hereby upheld.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 29th day of April, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI R.S. SYAL JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 29th April, 2021 SB आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.

3.

The CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →