Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 92CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Leroy Somer & Controls (I) Pvt Ltd on 6 February, 2009
9. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the assesse. The assessee has
relied the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Leroy
Somer And Controls (India) P. Ltd (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after
considering relevant facts and also provisions of section 271G held that when
the assessee has furnished specific information or documentation, the other
documentation or information relating to data base or transactions entered
into by third parties may collation or collection from time to time, therefore,
when the assessee has furnished details, the AO was erred in levying penalty
u/s 271G for non compliance with provisions of Rule 10D without specifying
which particular documentation was not furnished by the assessee. The
relevant observations of the Court are as under:-
Acit Cen Cir 29 Cen Rg 7, Mumbai vs Knight Riders Sports P.Ltd, Mumbai on 12 December, 2018
10. An identical issue has been considered by the co-ordinate bench of
Mumbai Bench "K" in the case of ACIT vs D Navinchandra Exports (P) Ltd
(supra). The Tribunal, after considering facts and difficulties of industry
specific held that where TPO directed assessee diamond merchant to furnish
segmental profitability for AE transactions and non AE transactions, since
practically difficult in furnishing segmental profitability for AE segment and non
AE segment, so expressed by diamond industry, penalty u/s 271G was not
called for. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:-
Section 92 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ensco Maritime Limited As Agent Of Mr. ... vs Dcit, Spl. Range [Alongwith Ita Nos. ... on 26 July, 2004
(iii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
Ld. CIT(A) was not incorrect in stating that the TPO should have asked for
copies of profit and loss accounts and balance sheets of AEs to make an
overall comparison with the gross profitability levels of the assessee with
the AEs to ascertain diversion f profits, if any ignoring the finding of the IT
AT in the case of Aztec Software Technology services Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA
No. 5S4/Bang./2006) in which it has been held that there is no legal
requirement for the Assessing Officer to prima fasciae de'-ionstrate fax
avoidance before invoking the provisions of section 92 and 92CA of the
Act"
1