ITAT Ahmedabad deletes ₹8.80 Cr penalty u/s 271G – Mere “improper benchmarking” is NOT a default under 92D(3)

DCIT Vs Atul Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee company entered into international & specified domestic transactions. TPO issued notices u/s 92CA(2)/92D(3) asking for TP documents. Assessee submitted TP study & supporting documents. TPO accepted most transactions but objected to benchmarking method (CUP) in two transactions held benchmarking was improper. Penalty u/s 271G @2% of total transaction value = ₹8.80 Cr was levied. CIT(A) deleted penalty. Revenue appealed. ITAT’s Key Findings: Penalty u/s 271G applies ONLY when information/document required u/s 92D(3) is NOT furnished. He...