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 first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
