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...
The ITAT held that corrected TDS statements filed before the later amendment could not be treated as time-barred, because no specific filing limit then applied, and the amendment in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 could not operate retrospectively. It also held that an appeal lay against the rectification order itself, so dismissal by the first appellate authority on limitation was unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal held that fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing under section 200A for periods before 01.06.2015, because the enabling machinery came into force only from that date; the fee was deleted.
The ITAT held that corrected TDS statements filed before the later amendment could not be treated as time-barred, because no specific filing limit then applied, and the amendment in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 could not operate retrospectively. It also held that an appeal lay against the rectification order itself, so dismissal by the first appellate authority on limitation was unsustainable. On merits, the Tribunal held that fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing under section 200A for periods before 01.06.2015, because the enabling machinery came into force only from that date; the fee was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
