Penalty u/s. 271G - assessee did not provide any basis for ...

Case Laws Income Tax

October 5, 2021

Penalty u/s. 271G - assessee did not provide any basis for comparing the transactions and it failed to provide any alternative method to benchmark the transactions which had prevented determination of ALP of these transactions - considering the practical difficulties in furnishing the segment wise details of AE segment and non-AE segment transactions in diamond industry, no penalty under Sec. 271G could justifiably be imposed for failure to furnish the said information - we confirm the impugned order deleting the penalty u/s 271G - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271G - assessee did not provide any basis for ...

Case Laws Income Tax

October 5, 2021

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271G - assessee failed to furnish documents as required under the Rule 10D(1) in respect of the international transactions - considering the reasonable cause...

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Penalty levied u/s. 271G - nternational transactions - assessee ignoring the provisions of Section 92D of the Act as well as Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules - Section...

Penalty levied u/s 271G - Assessee has failed to maintain the information as per Rule 10D (1) (d), (g), (h) and (m) of Income Tax Rules - ‘reaso-nable cause’ under...

The assessee had demonstrated the genuineness of the share transaction resulting in long-term capital gains, which were claimed as exempt u/s 10(38). The Revenue...

The case pertains to penalty proceedings u/s 271D for violating Section 269SS and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act. The assessee received Rs. 18 lakh from a trustee...

The assessee failed to substantiate the provision made for freight, material handling charges, and IT support expenses as an allowable expenditure. The assessee merely...

The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the issue of penalty u/s 271G in a case involving Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. The assessee did not initially provide...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

Penalty u/s 271G – Failure to maintain documents and accounts being audited - AO should have initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AA/271BA – the penalty levied u/s 271G...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment - assessee advanced interest free loan to its AE - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all...

The case pertains to the levy of penalty u/s 271G for failure to furnish documents and information u/ss 92CA/92D. The key points are: The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)...

The assessee was levied penalty u/s 271B for delay in filing the audit report u/s 44AB within the stipulated time. The assessee contended that the invoices and other...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Bogus purchases - The assessee has only filed the copy of the ledger of the purchases from one-party. But the assessee failed to file the copies...

Penalty u/s 271AA - failure of the assessee to report the intentional transactions - As seen that the AO wrongly applied the amended Section 271AA which is effective...

Quick Updates: