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...
An unsigned notice issued under section 143(2) was held invalid because signing in electronic form was treated as a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1), not a mere formality. As the notice was void ab initio, it could not confer jurisdiction on the AO to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The assessment was therefore quashed, and the merits grounds were left academic and not examined.
An unsigned notice issued under section 143(2) was held invalid because signing in electronic form was treated as a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1), not a mere formality. As the notice was void ab initio, it could not confer jurisdiction on the AO to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The assessment was therefore quashed, and the merits grounds were left academic and not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.