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...
Faceless reassessment jurisdiction under section 144B, read with CBDT directions extending faceless assessment to reassessments under section 147, permits both NaFAC and the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to conduct such proceedings. A reassessment completed by NaFAC before notification under section 151A remained valid because it was founded on the existing faceless-assessment mandate, the relevant limitation exclusion did not apply, and subsequent validation supported issuance of reassessment notices by officers other than NaFAC. However, where reassessment was completed ex parte and non-participation was attributed to longstanding mental illness, natural justice required a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence. The additions were remanded for fresh appellate adjudication after three effective opportunities.
Faceless reassessment jurisdiction under section 144B, read with CBDT directions extending faceless assessment to reassessments under section 147, permits both NaFAC and the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to conduct such proceedings. A reassessment completed by NaFAC before notification under section 151A remained valid because it was founded on the existing faceless-assessment mandate, the relevant limitation exclusion did not apply, and subsequent validation supported issuance of reassessment notices by officers other than NaFAC. However, where reassessment was completed ex parte and non-participation was attributed to longstanding mental illness, natural justice required a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence. The additions were remanded for fresh appellate adjudication after three effective opportunities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
