Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
