Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 
