/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. SSL-TTK Ltd. [T.C.A.No.776 of 2014 dated August 05, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against the Order I.T.A.No.544/Mds/2011 dated February 15, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“the ITAT”) on the issue as to whether the ITAT was right in upholding the order which directed the Assessing Officer (“AO”) to delete the penalty under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the IT Act”).
M/s. SSL-TTK Ltd. (“the Respondent”) filed the return of income admitting loss which was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under Section 92CA of the IT Act. The TPO held there was no need for adjustment and the AO accepted the total income declared by the Respondent. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271G of the IT Act on the ground that the Respondent did not comply with the letter dated November 25, 2008 issued by the TPO requiring the assessee to furnish information in terms of Section 92D and Section 92E of the IT Act and proceeded to levy penalty at 2% of the value of international transaction.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the TPO’s letter dated November 25, 2008 is a notice under Section 92D(3) of the IT Act. It empowers the AO to require any person who has entered into an international transaction to furnish any information or document. There was no defect in the notice. The AO did not dispute the fact that out of 16 documents/items, which the Respondent was called upon to comply with by the TPO, 12 of them were compiled by the Respondent.
Further, held that the conduct of the Respondent in complying with 12 out of 16 items as called for by the TPO is reasonable and therefore, the act cannot be considered to be unreasonable. Also noted that there was no finding on the side of the AO that the conduct of the Respondent lacked bona fide. Therefore, it was correct on the part of the ITAT to hold the order in favour of the Respondent.
Online GST Course by Bimal Jain
Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course
Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu
Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)
Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
In Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India [WRIT TAX No. - 524 of 2021 dated September 30, 2021], Ashok Kumar Agarwal ("the Petitioner") had filed a Petition to challenge the initiation of re-assessment
In P.H. Chandrashekar v. ITO Ward-1(2) [C.O. No.106/Bang/2017] along with ITO Ward-1(2) Mysore v. P.H. Chandrashekar [ITA No.1080/Bang/2015 dated September 24, 2021], the current cross objection
In Income Tax Officer v. Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan [I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 dated October 01, 2021] [along with cross objection filed by Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan (“the Respondent
In Shri Jayaseelan v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Tiruvannamalai, [I.T.A No.1455/Chny/2018 dated September 24, 2021], Shri Jayaseelan (“the Appellant”) has filed the current appeal being aggrieve
In NCC Limited, Hyderabad v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad [ITA No. 595/Hyd/2020 and ITA No. 596/Hyd/2020 dated September 27, 2021], the current appeal has been filed again