Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The case pertains to the levy of penalty u/s 271G for failure to furnish documents and information u/ss 92CA/92D. The key points are: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) did not find the information/explanations provided by the assessee during transfer pricing assessment proceedings to be inaccurate or insufficient to determine the arm's length price. The TPO acknowledged that the assessee furnished the required details and information. There was no finding recorded by the TPO that the assessee lacked bona fides or displayed indifference in producing records, preventing the TPO from determining the arm's length price. Significantly, the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO was deleted by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the Revenue accepted the DRP's order. Relying on the case of Ankit Gems (P) Ltd., the Appellate Tribunal held that where the TPO accepted the assessee's benchmarking under TNMM and made no variation/adjustment to the arm's length price, the imposition of penalty u/s 271G would be unsustainable. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed.
The case pertains to the levy of penalty u/s 271G for failure to furnish documents and information u/ss 92CA/92D. The key points are: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) did not find the information/explanations provided by the assessee during transfer pricing assessment proceedings to be inaccurate or insufficient to determine the arm's length price. The TPO acknowledged that the assessee furnished the required details and information. There was no finding recorded by the TPO that the assessee lacked bona fides or displayed indifference in producing records, preventing the TPO from determining the arm's length price. Significantly, the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO was deleted by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the Revenue accepted the DRP's order. Relying on the case of Ankit Gems (P) Ltd., the Appellate Tribunal held that where the TPO accepted the assessee's benchmarking under TNMM and made no variation/adjustment to the arm's length price, the imposition of penalty u/s 271G would be unsustainable. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
