Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
In a penalty matter under section 271D, the ITAT held that limitation under section 275(1)(c) runs from the Assessing Officer's reference initiating penalty action, not from the later notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. After noting conflicting High Court views, it followed the later Karnataka High Court position and also applied the principle that, where two non-jurisdictional interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. As the penalty order was passed beyond the permissible period from the date of initiation, the penalty was time-barred and was quashed.
In a penalty matter under section 271D, the ITAT held that limitation under section 275(1)(c) runs from the Assessing Officer's reference initiating penalty action, not from the later notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. After noting conflicting High Court views, it followed the later Karnataka High Court position and also applied the principle that, where two non-jurisdictional interpretations are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be adopted. As the penalty order was passed beyond the permissible period from the date of initiation, the penalty was time-barred and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
