Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that notices issued during assessment proceedings without digital or manual signatures are illegal, invalid, and inoperative, lacking jurisdictional validity. Consequently, non-compliance with such unsigned notices cannot constitute a default under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The penalty imposed on the assessee for alleged non-compliance was therefore unsustainable. The tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning dismissing the assessee's contention, affirming that an unsigned notice is tantamount to no notice at all, and awareness of pending proceedings does not cure the defect or validate the notice. In view of these findings, the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that notices issued during assessment proceedings without digital or manual signatures are illegal, invalid, and inoperative, lacking jurisdictional validity. Consequently, non-compliance with such unsigned notices cannot constitute a default under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The penalty imposed on the assessee for alleged non-compliance was therefore unsustainable. The tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s reasoning dismissing the assessee's contention, affirming that an unsigned notice is tantamount to no notice at all, and awareness of pending proceedings does not cure the defect or validate the notice. In view of these findings, the penalty levied under section 272A(1)(d) was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.