Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4824 
Join Channel 
