2020 (12) TMI 1365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts are, the assessee is a resident company and is engaged in the business of providing consultancy/advisory services on financial matters. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st March 2013, declaring loss of Rs. 13,745. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee in the relevant previous year had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) aggregating to Rs. 18,70,20,000. However, the assessee has not submitted the statutory audit report concerning such international transaction along with the return of income. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the alleged arm's len....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....beginning has taken a stand before the Departmental Authorities that during the year under consideration, it has not entered into any international transaction with the AE. Therefore, the transfer pricing provisions would not be applicable. He submitted, while considering the issue in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal vide order dated 28th January 2019, in ITA no.675/Mum./2016, has restored back the issue to the DRP for fresh adjudication. Thus, he submitted, in view of the decision of the Tribunal, the issues relating to imposition of penalty should also be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, though, relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he submitted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the DRP, however, the Tribunal while considering assessee's contention in ITA no.675/Mum./2016, dated 28th January 2019, has restored the issue to the DRP for re-considering assessee's claim that there was no international transaction of revenue nature between the assessee and the AE in the relevant financial year. Thus, in our considered opinion, when assessee's contention regarding not having any international transaction with the AE is still unresolved and is pending before the DRP, it would not be logical and proper to proceed in the matter of imposition of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act. The requirement of complying with the provisions of section 92D and 92E of the Act only arises i....