{"id":42377,"date":"2024-05-04T15:19:39","date_gmt":"2024-05-04T09:49:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/add-cit-v-aon-services-india-p-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-344-103-itr-21-sndelhitrib\/"},"modified":"2024-05-04T15:19:39","modified_gmt":"2024-05-04T09:49:39","slug":"add-cit-v-aon-services-india-p-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-344-103-itr-21-sndelhitrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/add-cit-v-aon-services-india-p-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-344-103-itr-21-sndelhitrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Add. CIT v. AON Services India P. Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 344\/ 103 ITR 21 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee was a subsidiary of a USA company. For AY 2006-07, based on the additions made in the draft assessment order, the AO initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u\/s\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the\u00a0Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income and passed an order imposing penalty. On appeal against imposition of penalty, the CIT(A) held that the additions arising out of the transfer pricing adjustment based on change of filters and comparables being debatable issues,it could not lead to imposition of penalty u\/s\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the Act. Insofar as provision for doubtful debts was concerned, the ITAT observed that the assessee itself had disallowed the same in its computation of income and directed the AO to verify the same and withdraw the disallowance, therefore, the addition did not survive and hence the assessee could not be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.<\/p>\n<p>For AY\u00a02007-08, one of the grounds for imposing penalty u\/s 271(1)(c) was\u00a0 transfer pricing adjustment, wherein the ITAT upheld its order passed for AY 2006-07 above. The ITAT further observed that though the addition on account of denial of benefit of deduction under section\u00a010A\u00a0of the Act was proposed in the draft assessment order, while considering the assessee\u2019s objections on the issue, the DRP deleted the addition. In the final assessment order, the AO had allowed the entire claim of the assessee. Thus, the AO had imposed a penalty on a non-existent addition. Therefore, the ITAT held that there was no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the Act.(AY.2006-07, 2007-08)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Transfer pricing adjustment-Application of filters and selection of comparables  are debatable issues-not ground for levy of penalty-suo-moto disallowance of provision for doubtful debts-tribunal directed the ao to withdraw disallowance after verification-as addition did not survive-cancellation of penalty justified-denial of deduction u\/s 10a-proposed in draft assessment order but deleted by drp-deduction allowed in full in final assessment order-penalty does not survive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-b1v","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42377"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42378,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42377\/revisions\/42378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}