Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
