Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Penalty under section 271D was quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Penalty under section 271D was quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
