SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

M.L.GUSIA, R.K.GUPTA
Ravi Kumar Rawat – Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jaipur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.K. Ranka, Siddasth Ranka,Sanjay Kumar

ORDER

Per Bench. - These are two appeals by assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A) in confirming the order under section 271BA of the IT Act relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

2. As per provisions of section 92E, the assessee was required to obtain a report from an Accountant and furnish such report in Form 3CEB on or before the specified date in the prescribed form duly signed and verified in the prescribed manner by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. The assessee failed to furnish report from an Accountant as required by section 92E for both the years. In the provisions of section 92E it has been provided that where the assessee failed to furnish a report from an accountant, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Since the assessee failed to furnish the said report, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause. In reply it was contended that the assessee was not aware of the provisions of transfer pricing law and requirement under those provisions as they were introduced in the immediately preceding financial year only. It was also submitted that the assessee’s books of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top