2024 (9) TMI 1628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arate orders of CIT(A)-58, Mumbai dated 27/03/2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Since identical facts are involved therefore, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common ground in both the appeals relates to levy of penalty u/s. 271G of the Act though, the quantum of penalty may differ. 4. The underlined facts in the issues are that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in USA with tax residence in USA. It is engaged in distribution of motion pictures and its operations are carried on from outside India. During the year under consideration assessee has received license fee from its AE towards exhibition of motion pictures over television in various t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee was not required to maintain information under Rule 10D of the Rules and therefore, application of penalty u/s. 271G for non-furnishing of financial statements and non-maintenance of information required under Rule 10D of the Rules does not arise. It is the say of the Counsel that the assessee has complied with notice furnished by the TPO therefore, penalty u/s. 271G of the Act should not be levied. Per contra, the DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. 10. We are of the considered view that there is no finding by the TPO / AO in the transfer pricing orders stating that the information / explanations provided by the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court interalia held as under:- "12. Be that as it may, it is not a case of total failure, but it may be a case of belated compliance. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that no leniency is required to be extended to the assessee and in fact, on an individual assessee, the High Court of Kerala did not show any indulgence with regard to the penalty, which was imposed under Section 271C and Section 273B of the Act in the case of CIT v. Thomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The assessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section 194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a partner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignora....