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...

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...

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

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...

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

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...

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

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 Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing....

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...

Adjustment of Penalties from Refund amount - After an appellate order allowed redemption of the seized currency upon payment of fines and penalties, the appellant filed...

CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving penalty u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on a co-noticee who is a Partner in a Customs Broker firm for...

Quick Updates: