VISEN INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TRANSFER PRICING )-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction or specified domestic transaction for each such failure." 5.5 Thus, as per the section 271G, penalty is to be levied

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI

273B of the Act in the case of CIT v.\nThomas Muthoot reported in (2015) 61 taxmann.com 76 (Kerala). The\nassessee pleaded that he was under the bonafide belief that under Section\n194A, they were not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest paid by a\npartner to the firm and thus, pleaded ignorance of the statutory liability

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION, INC, MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

Transfer Pricing Officer has acknowledged that the assessee has furnished the details and information. 11. Further, there is no finding recorded by the TPO that the conduct of the assessee lacks bonafides or there any indifference on the part of the assessee in not producing the records called for by the TPO leading to inability on the part

SAINT GOBAIN MATERIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION SAS,FRANCE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Transfer Pricing adjustment has been made by the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment. 6. We are of the considered view that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that it was not required to file any return of income as its income has been subjected to tax deducted at source. We find that the assessee did furnish report under

ACIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Income Tax – 5(1)(1) बनाम Pvt. Ltd., Fc 7081 7082, Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, G- Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 020, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd6676J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Transfer Pricing, Mumbai, wherein the aforesaid aspects involved in the diamond manufacturing business were explained. 19. We find that the assessee had in the backdrop of the very nature of its business, viz. manufacturing of diamonds, had though explained to the TPO the practical difficulty in furnishing segment wise Profit & loss account of the AE segment

ACIT -14 (2) , MUMBAI vs. REDWOOD I.T. SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E would have to be construed liberally depending upon the facts of each case. 24. In the present case, the cause shown by the assessee for repayment of the loan/deposit otherwise than by account-payee cheque/bank draft was on account of the fact that the assessee was liable to receive amount towards