Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
