Be the first to like this
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer) confirmed levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also ruled that the return revised after reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer was only in anticipation of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment and to avoid rigours of Section 92C(4) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal disallowed the enhanced claim of Section 10A benefit as a result of the taxpayer’s suo-moto disallowance of reimbursement of marketing cost in the revised return. The Tribunal held that revised return was not filed voluntarily by the taxpayer, but was filed only after the initiation of TP proceedings. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the return was revised in anticipation of potential TP adjustment similar to previous years and to avoid the rigours of Section 92C(4) of the Act in connection with the Section 10A claim.