Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 888 - ITAT AHMEDABADDeletion of Penalty 271G of the Act – Specific information not asked by TPO u/s 92D(3) of the Act – Held that:- The decision in Cargill India (P.) Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 3(1), New Delhi. [2008 (2) TMI 453 - ITAT DELHI-C] followed - there has to be a specific requisition under section 92 D(3), with due application of mind, for furnishing of information and it is only when such a requisition is not complied with that penalty under section 271 G can be levied - there is no such specific requisition in the case which has not been complied with - There is no restriction of furnishing prescribed information in response to notice u/s 92CA(2) of the Act to support the computation of ALP by the taxpayer - there was no authority u/s 92D(3) with the T.P.O. to require the taxpayer to furnish non specified information or such information or document already filed by the taxpayer or use of the provision without asking the taxpayer to support first its ALP of International transactions. There is no point in requiring the same information again or require un-prescribed information u/s 92D(3) and cast additional burden on the taxpayer - it would no more remain valid notice u/s 92D(3)/271G of the Act - Once no specific requisition has been issued under section 92 D(3) for furnishing of specific particulars, there is no question of its remaining uncomplied with - there is no occasion for imposition of penalty under section 271G of the Act – Decided against Revenue.
|