https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381855 A tax treaty prevails over the Income-tax Act only to the extent it expressly overrides domestic law, and in the absence of a specific treaty bar, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) remain maintainable. Penalty is a distinct proceeding from assessment, and Explanation 7 does not impose an automatic levy; the assessee may still show that transfer pricing was computed under Section 92C in good faith and with due diligence. Where a MAP resolution resolves the transfer pricing adjustment but does not address penalty, it does not confer immunity from penalty. The provision is therefore not rendered ultra vires and continues to apply subject to the statutory safeguards. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2020 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381855 A tax treaty prevails over the Income-tax Act only to the extent it expressly overrides domestic law, and in the absence of a specific treaty bar, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) remain maintainable. Penalty is a distinct proceeding from assessment, and Explanation 7 does not impose an automatic levy; the assessee may still show that transfer pricing was computed under Section 92C in good faith and with due diligence. Where a MAP resolution resolves the transfer pricing adjustment but does not address penalty, it does not confer immunity from penalty. The provision is therefore not rendered ultra vires and continues to apply subject to the statutory safeguards. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381855