This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes ₹8.80 Cr penalty u/s 271G – Mere “improper benchmarking” is NOT a default under 92D(3)
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- DCIT Vs Atul Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2016-17
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Ahmedabad
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
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 N...
Author Info
