9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arm s length price. On the contrary, the Transfer Pricing Officer has acknowledged that the assessee has furnished the details and information. There is no finding recorded by the TPO that the conduct of the assessee lacks bonafides or there any indifference on the part of the assessee in not producing the records called for by the TPO leading to inability on the part of the TPO to determine the arm s length price. The most important factor is that whatever TP adjustment has been done by the TPO has been deleted by the DRP and the Revenue has accepted the order of the DRP. On similar facts in the case of Ankit Gems (P) Ltd. [ 2019 (7) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that where TPO had accepted benchmarking done by assessee under TNMM and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se fee received from India during the year under consideration. The assessee had reported income earned from licensing of content to its AEs in the Form 3CEB. The case of the assessee was referred u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act to the office of DCIT-Transfer Pricing, Mumbai. The TPO subsequently issued a notice raising certain queries which were duly replied by the assessee. The assessee filed part of information and documents requested by the TPO and subsequently, the assessee furnished point by point response to the TPO s notice indicating its compliance with the requirements of Section 92D(3) of the Act r.w.r. 10D of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee filed further information / documents requested by the TPO during the course of the transfer p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished the details and information. 11. Further, there is no finding recorded by the TPO that the conduct of the assessee lacks bonafides or there any indifference on the part of the assessee in not producing the records called for by the TPO leading to inability on the part of the TPO to determine the arm s length price. 12. The most important factor is that whatever TP adjustment has been done by the TPO has been deleted by the DRP and the Revenue has accepted the order of the DRP. On similar facts the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ankit Gems (P) Ltd. 106 taxmann.com 243 has held that where TPO had accepted benchmarking done by assessee under TNMM and no variation / adjustment was made by him to ALP imposition of penalty u/s. 271G w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming the order passed by the CIT(A). Though we have held that the explanation offered by the assessee stating that they are a novice to transfer pricing transactions, which is not prima facie acceptable, but the conduct of the assessee in complying with 12 items out of 16 items as called for by the TPO can be considered to be reasonable and the act cannot be held to be an unreasonable act, but can be considered as a reasonable act of an organization acting with prudence under normal circumstances without negligence or inaction or want of bonafides. There is no finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the conduct of the assessee lacks bonafide or there was supine indifference on the part of the assessee in not producing the records ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
