Section 92D

Section 92D — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 92D, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• DCIT v Priya Blue Industries P Ltd ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The AO has levied a s.271AA penalty saying I did not maintain transfer pricing documentation, without saying which documents. Does that penalty stand?
  No, on this decision. A penalty under s.271AA has to identify the information or document prescribed by s.92D read with rule 10D that was not maintained or furnished; a general assertion will not do, and here neither the assessment order nor the penalty order said which document was missing. The Tribunal gave a second and independent ground: the penalty was passed in a perfunctory manner without the requisite show-cause notice and without proper opportunity, the officer having called for rule 10D documents without naming any clause of the rule. That the transactions the penalty was levied on had not been adjusted by the Transfer Pricing Officer at all was added as a further point, not as the basis of the decision.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.