The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the issue of penalty ...

Appellate Tribunal ruled penalty u/s 271G not justified in diamond trade case. No TP adjustment made.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 19, 2024

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 segment-wise results for international transactions but later submitted the information to the TPO upon query. Despite this, the TPO imposed a penalty u/s 271G without proposing any Armâ€™s Length Price adjustment. The ITAT noted precedents where penalties were deleted in similar cases. The CIT(A) also referred to relevant decisions and deleted the penalty, citing the substantial compliance by the assessee, the nature of the diamond trade, and the absence of any Armâ€™s Length Price adjustment. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds for appeal.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the issue of penalty ...

Appellate Tribunal ruled penalty u/s 271G not justified in diamond trade case. No TP adjustment made.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 19, 2024

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...

Penalty u/s 271G - non-furnishing’ TP Study Report’ which is not a specified document under Rule 10D - penalty deleted - AT

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

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...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

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...

The case involved a challenge to the imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalties...

Power of tribunal to review application - It is the well laid down proposition of law that ‘in the absence of any power of ‘Review’ or ‘Recall’ vested with the...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

Income–tax (10th Amendment) Rules, 2018 - Form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal

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 case involves Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments and the classification of segments for benchmarking purposes. The Appellate Tribunal held that TP adjustments should...

Penalty u/s 271G - requirement of maintenance of segment profitability between AEs and non-AEs transactions - non-maintenance of details in terms of section 92D(3) of IT...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Quick Updates: