TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the prescribed methods. The blame for failure on the part of the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. Similar issue of penalty u/s. 271G for diamond industry has been adjudicated in assessee's favor in various decisions of this Tribunal. The coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd. [ 2017 (11) TMI 1307 - ITAT MUMBAI] held 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. - I.T.A. No. 6854/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2021 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es (AE) during the year, the same were referred to Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer-2(1)(2), Mumbai (TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The assessee had benchmarked the transactions using entity level TNMM method and claimed the transactions to be at Arm's Length. However, Ld. TPO sought segmental profitability of AE and non-AE segment. The assessee submitted that it was not practical to identify and bifurcate the stock, cost and revenue under two segments. Though Ld. TPO accepted the transactions to be at Arm's Length but he initiated penalty u/s. 271G for aforesaid failure on the part of the assessee. Finally, the assessee was saddled with impugned penalty u/s. 271G vide order dated 29/07/2016. 5. The Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing 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. Similar is the view in DCIT Vs. Leo Schachter Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5931/Mum/2017 order dated 28/02/2019) which in turn, inter-alia, placed reliance on the decision rendered in DCIT Vs. Firestone International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5304/Mum/2016 dated 01/12/2018) and the decision of Jaipur Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Gillette India Ltd. (54 Taxmann.com 313). Similar is the ratio of following decisions:- 1. ACIT vs. SSL-TTK (2012) 52 SOT 20 (URO)(Chennai)(Trib.) 2. ITO vs. Netsoft India Ltd. (2014) 150 ITD 454 (Mum.)(Trib.) 3. ACIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
