Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
