Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 92D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, ... vs Dcit, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai on 28 August, 2019
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we herein respectfully follow the view
taken by the Tribunal in the case of Navinchandra Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
wherein it was observed that considering the practical difficulties involved in
furnishing the segmental details of AE transactions and non-AE transactions
in the diamond industry, penalty under Sec. 271G could not be justifiably
imposed. Before parting, we may herein observe, that the Tribunal in its
aforesaid order had observed that considering the reasonable cause for non-
furnishing of the segmental details of the AE transactions and non-AE
transactions because of the peculiar nature of the trade in diamond industry,
ITA No.2010/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 11
DCIT-10(1)(2) Vs. M/s Kama Schachter Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Dcit-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs M/S.Leo Schachter Diamonds India ... on 28 February, 2019
In support of his aforesaid
contention reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the order of the ITAT 'K'
bench, Mumbai in CIT-5(2)(2) VS. Laxmi Diamond Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.
2643/Mum/2017), dated 27.12.2018 AND DCIT-14(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Leo
Schachter Diamonds India P. Ltd. (2020) 116 taxman.com 994 (Mum). It
was further submitted by the ld. A.R that no penalty under Sec. 271G could be
imposed for failure to furnish information under Sec. 92D unless the notice
was issued by the AO/TPO specifying the information to be produced with
respect to the international transactions.
M/S. Bhadani Financers Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 30 April, 2019
9. We shall now deal with the view taken by the CIT(A) that in the case of
the diamond industry, due to the very nature of the trade therein involved it
was difficult to prepare the segmental details as regards the AE and non-AE
transactions. As observed by us at length hereinabove, the aforesaid issue
had came up before the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. D. Navinchandra
Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 87 taxman.com 306 (Mum), wherein the Tribunal
after exhaustive deliberations had inter alia observed that 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. On
a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find, that the Tribunal while
dismissing the appeal of the revenue had observed as under:
1