Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.