Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Penalty under section 271DA required a clear jurisdictional foundation in the assessment order itself, including recorded satisfaction identifying the alleged cash receipt and the ingredients of section 269ST; a bare reference to penalty proceedings was insufficient, so jurisdiction failed and the penalty order was quashed. On merits, contravention had to be proved by cogent corroborative material showing person-wise, transaction-wise or event-wise receipt beyond the statutory threshold; uncorroborated tally data, statements and estimated income from rejected books did not discharge the Revenue's burden, so the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271DA required a clear jurisdictional foundation in the assessment order itself, including recorded satisfaction identifying the alleged cash receipt and the ingredients of section 269ST; a bare reference to penalty proceedings was insufficient, so jurisdiction failed and the penalty order was quashed. On merits, contravention had to be proved by cogent corroborative material showing person-wise, transaction-wise or event-wise receipt beyond the statutory threshold; uncorroborated tally data, statements and estimated income from rejected books did not discharge the Revenue's burden, so the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
