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...
Disciplinary action against an Assessing Officer for granting exemption while exercising quasi-judicial powers was unsustainable because the charge alleged only a faulty assessment, departure from the Department's earlier stand, and revenue prejudice. The HC held that misconduct requires more than an erroneous or debatable decision and must reflect lack of integrity, want of devotion to duty, mala fides, recklessness, conscious disregard of law, or undue favour. The officer had relied on earlier ITAT orders, relevant precedent, and changed facts, so his view was plausible and reasoned. In the absence of evidence of ill intention or personal gain, the charge-sheet and penalty order were rightly quashed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Disciplinary action against an Assessing Officer for granting exemption while exercising quasi-judicial powers was unsustainable because the charge alleged only a faulty assessment, departure from the Department's earlier stand, and revenue prejudice. The HC held that misconduct requires more than an erroneous or debatable decision and must reflect lack of integrity, want of devotion to duty, mala fides, recklessness, conscious disregard of law, or undue favour. The officer had relied on earlier ITAT orders, relevant precedent, and changed facts, so his view was plausible and reasoned. In the absence of evidence of ill intention or personal gain, the charge-sheet and penalty order were rightly quashed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
