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...
A mistaken reference to the wrong tax penalty provision does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings; however, where the order imposes a penalty rate consistent with the wrong provision, the error is substantive rather than clerical. The discrepancy between a 100% penalty under one provision and a 50% penalty under the applicable provision showed that the power had been exercised on the wrong footing, making the order unsustainable. Fresh proceedings may be initiated under the correct provision in accordance with law.
A mistaken reference to the wrong tax penalty provision does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings; however, where the order imposes a penalty rate consistent with the wrong provision, the error is substantive rather than clerical. The discrepancy between a 100% penalty under one provision and a 50% penalty under the applicable provision showed that the power had been exercised on the wrong footing, making the order unsustainable. Fresh proceedings may be initiated under the correct provision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.