Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
