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...
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment...
Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedural.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment under Sections 148 and 148A was treated as curing the objection based on the identity of the officer, while Section 151A was held to be only enabling and not itself a source of faceless reassessment jurisdiction. The faceless scheme notified on 29.03.2022 applied prospectively to notices under Section 148, so a notice issued earlier could not be attacked for want of faceless jurisdiction at initiation. The later substitution of Section 144B, expressly covering reassessment, was treated as clarificatory and procedural, and omission of the old sub-section 144B(9) meant procedural lapses did not automatically void the assessment. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected; the additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits were restored for fresh examination.
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment under Sections 148 and 148A was treated as curing the objection based on the identity of the officer, while Section 151A was held to be only enabling and not itself a source of faceless reassessment jurisdiction. The faceless scheme notified on 29.03.2022 applied prospectively to notices under Section 148, so a notice issued earlier could not be attacked for want of faceless jurisdiction at initiation. The later substitution of Section 144B, expressly covering reassessment, was treated as clarificatory and procedural, and omission of the old sub-section 144B(9) meant procedural lapses did not automatically void the assessment. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected; the additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits were restored for fresh examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
