| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0103 (Sur-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
AO had cited details in respect of transaction covered under section 40A(2)(b) in his notice issued under section 142(1) and assessee in response duly filed audit reports containing all details regarding related parties under section 40A(2)(b) along with name, PAN, Relations, nature of transactions and payments made. Even otherwise, the assessee had also duly furnished report from expert in Form 3CEB as required by law, wherein all details of payment made to related party were mentioned, i.e., name of persons with whom specifically domestic transactions as entered into, description of transaction along with quantitative details, if any, total amounts paid or payable in transaction as per books and as computed by assessee having regard to arm's length price. The method used for determining arm's length price also showed that there was nothing on record to suggest that assessee had made any excessive payments to related parties which has caused loss to the revenue. Merely just because view taken by AO was not found acceptable to Pr. CIT, it did not mean that AO had failed to make requisite enquiries. Thus, view taken AO was plausible and impugned order passed under section 263 was quashed.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - No lack of enquiry as alleged by Pr. CIT as regards payments made to parties covered under section 40A(2)(b) -
Pr. CIT had order passed by as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that AO failed to make enquiry as regards various payments made by assessee to persons covered under section 40A(2)(b) in the form of Director Remuneration, Rent, Expenses and Puchase Payments.Held: AO had cited details in respect of transaction covered under section 40A(2)(b) in his notice issued under section 142(1) and assessee in response duly filed audit reports containing all details regarding related parties under section 40A(2)(b) along with name, PAN, Relations, nature of transactions and payments made. Even otherwise, the assessee had also duly furnished report from expert in Form 3CEB as required by Law, wherein all details of payment made to related party were mentioned, i.e., name of persons with whom specifically domestic transactions as entered into, description of transaction along with quantitative details, if any. Total amounts paid or payable in transaction as per books and as computed by assessee having regard to arm's length price. The method used for determining arm's length price also showed that there was nothing on record to suggest that assessee had made any excessive payments to related parties which has caused loss to the revenue. Merely just because view taken by AO was not found acceptable to Pr. CIT, it did not mean that AO had failed to make requisite enquiries. Thus, view taken by AO was plausible and impugned order passed under section 263 was quashed.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-15
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|