TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal in deleting the penalty levied under section 271G. Thus with the consent of both the parties, both the appeals were clubbed together and are decided by common order to avoid conflicting decision. 2. For appreciation of facts, facts in AY 2012-13 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: i. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271G of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,42,14,214/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee deliberately avoided the production of T.P. documentation as required u/s 92D?" ii. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturing, cutting, polishing and trading in diamonds. The assessee while filing return of income reported certain international transaction with its associated enterprises (AE) and furnished Form-3CEB. Consequent upon reporting of international transaction, a reference was made to Transfer Prising Officer (TPO) for computation of Arms Length Price, however, during the transfer pricing proceedings before Transfer Prising Officer the assessee took plea that Form-3CEB was filed only out of abandoned action and the entity which the assessee made transaction is not associated enterprise. 4. The TPO accepted the transaction reported with the assessee with its alleged associated enterprise without any variation. However, the TPO initiated pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm wherein it was contended that Mr. Dilip A Jhaveri is having 10.00%, Mrs. Smita D Jhaveri having 5.00%, Mr. Milin D Jhaveri having 50.00%, Ms. Pooja M Jhaveri having 5.00%, Mrs. Ila S. Jhaveri having 20.00 % and Mr. Karan S. Jhaveri having 10.00%. Whereas, Mr Shalin Jhaveri holding 100% shareholding in D. A. Jhaveri BVBA (DAJ Belgium). Certificate from DAJ Belgium was also furnished. The assessee also explained the provision of section 92A(1) which defines "associated enterprises". 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee noted that as per the provision of section 92A(2)(a), if one enterprise hold directly ir indirectly 20.00% or more voting power in any other enterprises, the enterprises are called associated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful relief to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also held that once there is no international transaction, therefore, there was no reason to maintain documents/information as per Rule 10D. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of ld. Senior departmental representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue and the ld. Authorized Representative (ld AR) of the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of TPO/AO. The ld. Sr. DR submits that assessee himself reported international transaction with its AE and later on changes its stand that there is no international transaction. The assessee violating the provision of Rule 92D(3) as well as Rule 10D and viol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai v. Interjewel Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 5628/Mum/2016 9. ACIT v. Kapu Gems - [2022] 141 taxmann.com 14 (Mumbai-Trib.) 10. DCIT 5(2)(2) v. Laxmi Diamond P. Ltd. - ITA No. 2643/Mum/2017 11. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai v. Leo Schachter Diamonds India (P) Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 994 (Mumbai-Trib.) 12. ACIT v. D. Navinchandra Gems (P.) Ltd. [2020] 118 taxmann.com 670 (Mumbai-Trib.) 13. ACIT, Mumbai v. D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd. - [2017] 87 taxmann.com 306 (Mumbai-Trib.) 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have considered the order of the lower authorities carefully. We find that there is no much dispute on the fact. It is an admitted fact that TPO has not made any a....