9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, we find that that no notice u/s 92D (3) has been issued by the TPO/AO. Respectfully following the judgment of Leroy Somer Controls (India) (P) Ltd [ 2013 (9) TMI 761 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in Netsoft India Ltd. (supra), we delete the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271G. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5318/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For the Assessee : Mr. Arijit Chakravarty, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. The appeal is directed against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s transaction are at arm's length hence, there is no failure on the part of the Appellant in furnishing information / details as required for under Section 92D of the Act in respect of its international transactions. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying and the Hon ble CJT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271G of the Act without appreciating the fact that the transactions of the Appellant are replica transactions of Cadbury India Limited ('CIL') and it has relied on the information / documentation maintained by CIL which were already submitted during CIL's assessment proceedings. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. The Ld. counsel submits that no notice u/s 92D (3) has been issued by the TPO/AO. He specifically relies on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Leroy Somer Controls (India) (P) Ltd. (2013) 37 taxmann.com 407 (Del) and ITO vs. Netsoft India Ltd. (2013) 35 taxmann.com 579(Mumbai-Trib.) 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As mentioned hereinbefore the AO in his assessment order dated 27.12.2012 has accepted the income declared by the assessee at ₹ 24,35,23,345/-. We also find that neither the TPO nor the AO has issued notice u/s 92D(3) to the assessee. A condition precedent to levy penalty u/s 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
