TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar services during the year under consideration as provided in F.Y 2004-05, therefore, comparable companies applied for F.Y. 2004-05 are relevant to the transactions made during the F.Y. 2005-06, which was also updated by the appellant. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 127/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Revenue : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) For The Assessee : Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.) ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 07/11/2012 of the learned C.I.T.(A)-II Jaipur, for A.Y. 2006-07. The sole effective ground of appeal is as under:- On the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT. Again show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 13/5/2011 to impose the penalty under this Section and case was fixed for 20/5/2011. It was submitted by the assessee that it had filed appeal before the Hon ble ITAT and requested to keep the penalty proceeding in abeyance. After considering the assessee s reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that the facts of maintenance of records as per provisions of Rule 10D of the Rules will remain unchanged from the status as observed during assessment proceedings. The appellate authority may decide the relevancy of kind of information but observation that the records relating to international transaction were not maintained as required under Rule 10D of the Rules will remain same. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the comparability analysis under the transfer pricing regulations. The assessee failed to maintain records relating to international transactions as required under Rule 10D of the Rules is liable to impose penalty U/s 271AA of the Act. Thus, he imposed 2% penalty under this Section on value of each international transaction determined by the TPO at ₹ 15,51,675/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had deleted the penalty by observing that the ld TPO required the appellant to undertake search for comparables relevant for F.Y. 2005-06, which it did, using darabases updated as on 25th August, 2006. Out of 12 companies chosen by the TPO as comparable co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was less than 5% so no upward adjustmeant was warranted. The appellant had furnished required documents/information as per Rule 10D(4), as far as possible, be contemporaneous and should exist latest by the specified date referred to in clause (iv) of Section 92F. It is undisputed that the comparables were updated as on 25/8/2006, which is before the due date of filing of return i.e. 31/10/2006. As per Section 92D(3), the ld Assessing Officer may in the course of proceedings direct such person who has entered into an international transaction to furnish any information and document in respect thereof, as may be prescribed under sub-section (1) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a notice issued in this regard. The ld TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s PPN Power Generating Company Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 774/Mds/2007 dated 21st October, 2011. (iii) ACIT Vs. M/s Global One India Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5164 5165/Del/2011 dated 17th February, 2012. (iv) Tussor Machine Tools India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 1270/Mds/2012 dated 14th February, 2013. (v) Cargill India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 1844/Del/2007 order dated 15th February, 2008. He further argued that perusal of Rule 10D of the Rules are voluminous and various clauses are prescribed under Sub-Rule(1), therefore, and all such clauses are not applicable on the given case. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
