Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Section 92D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 92CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Procter & Gamble Home Products P.Ltd, ... vs Dcit 3(3)(1), Mumbai on 9 September, 2019
10. In view of the above factual aspects and case laws of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), we are
of the view that the assessee has sufficiently complied with the requirement
of Rule 10D(i) of the Rules and moreover the AO has not raised any specific
issue which specific documents is not produced under section 92D(3), hence,
we conclude that the assessee has furnished all the informations as asked for
by the AO and unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in the
submissions of documents, penalty under section 271G of the Act cannot be
levied. We delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee."
Dcit, Circle- 1(2)(1), International ... vs Convergys Customer Management Group ... on 11 January, 2023
17. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative ("learned
DR") placed reliance upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal in DCIT vs. Canverges Customer Management Group Inc., in ITA
No.3529 and 3530/Del/2015, vide order dated 13.10.2010. From the perusal
of the aforesaid decision, at the outset, we find that the dispute before the
Co-ordinated Bench of the Tribunal pertains to the levy of penalty under
ITA No.3109 -Mum-2016 (A.Y. 2008-09) 11
section 271AA of the Act, which specifically provides that penalty shall be
leviable, inter alia, for failure to keep and maintain such information and
documents as required under section 92D(1) or 92D(2) of the Act. However,
in the present case as evident from the record, the AO did not invoke the
provision of Section 271AA of the Act for non-maintenance of information and
documents as required under section 92D(1) or 92D(2) of the Act, and instead
penalty was levied under section 271G of the Act, which as noted in the
foregoing paragraphs, specifically requires failure to comply with a notice
issued under section 92D(3) of the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view
that the decision relied upon by the learned DR, being factually
distinguishable, is not applicable to the present case.
1