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...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
