Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court quashed the Transfer Pricing Order (TPO) and consequent draft assessment order, holding them illegal and arbitrary. The TPO order was not digitally signed on the last date of limitation, i.e., 31.07.2021, or subsequently on 02.08.2021, despite confirmation from the respondent. It was physically/manually signed only on 12.08.2021 and furnished to the petitioner on 13.08.2021, well beyond the limitation period. The TPO order was also uploaded on the ITBA portal on 16.08.2021, after the limitation period. The mere generation of a DIN number did not cure the defects and omissions in the TPO order, which was barred by limitation. The Court held that digital/physical/manual signature on the TPO order is an essential and mandatory requirement, failing which it would be invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.
The High Court quashed the Transfer Pricing Order (TPO) and consequent draft assessment order, holding them illegal and arbitrary. The TPO order was not digitally signed on the last date of limitation, i.e., 31.07.2021, or subsequently on 02.08.2021, despite confirmation from the respondent. It was physically/manually signed only on 12.08.2021 and furnished to the petitioner on 13.08.2021, well beyond the limitation period. The TPO order was also uploaded on the ITBA portal on 16.08.2021, after the limitation period. The mere generation of a DIN number did not cure the defects and omissions in the TPO order, which was barred by limitation. The Court held that digital/physical/manual signature on the TPO order is an essential and mandatory requirement, failing which it would be invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
