Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
An unauthenticated transfer pricing order issued without signature was held invalid and non est in law because no signed order of the Transfer Pricing Officer was placed on record. The Tribunal rejected reliance on the faceless assessment procedure as irrelevant on the facts noted. As the order under section 92CA(3) lacked authentication, it could not be recognised in law, and the impugned assessments for both assessment years were quashed. The assessee's appeals were therefore allowed on this legal ground.
An unauthenticated transfer pricing order issued without signature was held invalid and non est in law because no signed order of the Transfer Pricing Officer was placed on record. The Tribunal rejected reliance on the faceless assessment procedure as irrelevant on the facts noted. As the order under section 92CA(3) lacked authentication, it could not be recognised in law, and the impugned assessments for both assessment years were quashed. The assessee's appeals were therefore allowed on this legal ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
