Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
