Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
