Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The initiation of penalty under the wrong section was deemed arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The defective notice denied the assessee the opportunity to defend effectively. The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Sec. 274 of the Act is necessary for imposing penalties. Regarding the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's explanations were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal also considered that the penalty notice was invalid, rendering the levied penalty unsustainable in law. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied was ordered to be deleted.
The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The initiation of penalty under the wrong section was deemed arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The defective notice denied the assessee the opportunity to defend effectively. The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Sec. 274 of the Act is necessary for imposing penalties. Regarding the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's explanations were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal also considered that the penalty notice was invalid, rendering the levied penalty unsustainable in law. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied was ordered to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
