Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on transfer pricing adjustments involving manufacturing and trading segments. TPO made adjustments by using PBIT/Sales instead of assessee's PBDIT/Sales as Profit Level Indicator, modifying filters and comparables for benchmarking, and excluding certain operating items. Revenue authorities levied penalty solely because TPO's adjustments were upheld by CIT(A) and partly confirmed by ITAT. ITAT held that assessee furnished accurate details in return and transfer pricing study report using prescribed TNMM method under section 92C. Adjustments arose from interpretational differences on debatable issues, not inaccurate particulars. Neither TPO nor CIT(A) found arm's length price computed without good faith or due diligence. Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) governing transfer pricing penalties was neither invoked nor discussed. Penalty unsustainable as necessary conditions under Explanation 7 not satisfied. Appeal allowed.
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on transfer pricing adjustments involving manufacturing and trading segments. TPO made adjustments by using PBIT/Sales instead of assessee's PBDIT/Sales as Profit Level Indicator, modifying filters and comparables for benchmarking, and excluding certain operating items. Revenue authorities levied penalty solely because TPO's adjustments were upheld by CIT(A) and partly confirmed by ITAT. ITAT held that assessee furnished accurate details in return and transfer pricing study report using prescribed TNMM method under section 92C. Adjustments arose from interpretational differences on debatable issues, not inaccurate particulars. Neither TPO nor CIT(A) found arm's length price computed without good faith or due diligence. Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) governing transfer pricing penalties was neither invoked nor discussed. Penalty unsustainable as necessary conditions under Explanation 7 not satisfied. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
