Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the assessee applied the TNMM on the international transactions of ‘Software development’ in the manner prescribed and computed the ALP in good faith and with due diligence. Simply because certain comparables chosen by the assessee were found to be not comparable by the TPO, the good faith and due diligence cannot be said to be lacking. It is simply a difference of opinion between the assessee and the authorities on the comparability or otherwise of some companies. While disposing of the quantum appeal, we have held that the three comparables included in the final tally of comparables, are actually not comparable and liable to be excluded. As such, by treating the three companies as comparable, the assessee cannot be said to have acted in a mala fide manner or not in good faith. Levy of penalty was deleted. (AY. 2007-08)
United Health Group Information Services (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 DTR 246 / 192 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Transfer pricing adjustment– Software development–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]