Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various High Courts of India

These are the latest case laws decided by various High Courts of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.


  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Online
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
2 months 2 weeks ago #9362 by amit
Section - 92CA, 260A, 271(1)(c)
Order Date - 29-04-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Appellant - PCIT
Citation - 519Taxpundit139
Appeal No. - ITA 422/2019 & CM APPL. 19849/2019
Asstt. Year -



1. The Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A complains that the ITAT fell into error in setting aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation (7). It is contended that the assessee had in its Transfer Pricing Report – furnished for the purpose of ALP determination to the TPO, showed that the arithmetic mean of the profit margin of the comparable was at 13.41% only. However, the assessee offered the amount lower than that, on the basis of its actual income to the profit margin. The TPO rejected it and in the report brought all the transactions to tax, including those not offered in the ALP stating as follows:-

“7.1 The assessee has submitted revenue projections showing that if the capacity of the assessee had been utilized as per industry norms it would have earned 24% margin on costs. The crucial question is not whether the capacity was utilized but whether the under utilization was due to the market conditions or due to the control exercised by the Associated Enterprises. At a theoretical level, it can be argued that even if lucrative contracts would have come the assessee‟s way, it could not have taken them up due to its status of being a subsidiary of RSA group. This is contrary to risk reward matrix of an independent company operating in a free market scenario. Therefore, the assessee ought to be remunerated not only for the projects carried out but also for the costs incurred on keeping itself ready to perform services to only to its AEs”

2. The AO applied the TPO’s logic and proceeded to impose penalty by invoking Explanation (7) to Section 271(1)(c). The assessee’s appeal to the Commissioner was unsuccessful. The Tribunal by its impugned order set aside the penalty and held as follows:-

“10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders. It is not in dispute that assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of its foreign AE was set up as a 100% captive service provider to cater information technology services and software development/ IT solutions to RSA group of companies. There was an operating loss of 13.23% on the cost. Though TP documentation suggested the arms length price target of 13.41% however, it is not clear from the records as to whether any king of adjustment was proposed in such TP documentation. Ld. TPO, however has proceeded to make the TP adjustment in a completely erroneous manner. His main plank for making the upward adjustment was that there was underutilisation of capacity by the assessee because of less orders given by the AE to assessee; and therefore, assessee should have been remunerated for idle capacity utilisation by the AE; and assessee should have been allowed to operate in an independent manner and it did not had any option to optimise its return on capital and cost by obtaining third party contracts. Such a reasoning for making the TP adjustment without carrying out independent analysis with comparable uncontrolled transactions cannot be sustained. Ld. TPO instead of benchmarking the transaction under the prescribed method and FAR analysis with uncontrolled transactions has proceeded with the hypothesis that if the full capacity of the assessee had been utilised it would have earned 24% margin on the cost and therefore, it is presumed that such an under capacity utilisation was due to the control exercised by the AE. Such an interpretation for determining of arm‟s length price unknown under the transfer pricing regulations either under the Income Tax Act or under the Rules. In case under utilization of capacity was the factor triggering ALP determination, then the ld. TPO should have identified the comparable in similar line then would have analysed the capacity utilisation and made suitable adjustment without such analysis the entire basis adopted by the TPO to make the TP adjustment is wholly vitiated not only on facts but also under the law.

11. Another bizarre approach of the AO while computing the income of the assessee is that, he has given deduction u/s 10A on such transfer pricing adjustment which is against the provision of law as proviso below section 92C(4) categorically provides that no such deduction u/s 10A is allowable for transfer pricing adjustments made u/s 92C. Be that as it maybe, if the computation of the AO is taken into consideration, then addition for ALP to the extent of Rs. 2.21 crores has been given exemption and income has been computed at „nil‟ in so far as STPL unit is concerned; and only Rs. 43.94 lacs addition has been made on account of TP adjustment in the assessment order. Under these facts ostensibly the penalty of Rs. 2.21 crores neither could have been levied nor could have been computed by the AO, because there is no tax sought to be evaded to the extent of this amount of adjustment. In any case the manner in which arm‟s length price has been determined and TP adjustment has been made by the TPO, same is unsustainable in law and consequently there cannot be any
question of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or any concealment of income. Further there is no finding or observation by the AO that the loss margin of 13.23% has been found to be incorrect. Simply because adjustment has been

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of PCIT vs. ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCES IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.448 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO Read More
Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO

Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO

Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO Read More
CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd

CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd

CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd Read More
Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO

Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO

Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar