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...
Portal-generated order discrepancies and non-communication...
Portal order discrepancies invalidated rectification rejection, requiring fresh reasoned consideration after hearing and prompt communication of the order.
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
Portal-generated order discrepancies and non-communication rendered the rejection of a rectification application legally untenable. The order-sheet recorded that the rejection order could not be generated because of portal technical glitches, while the purported order carried a later handwritten signature date, creating an unresolved inconsistency. The High Court quashed the rejection and remanded the rectification application to the competent authority for fresh, reasoned disposal after giving the petitioner an adequate hearing and promptly communicating the order.
Portal-generated order discrepancies and non-communication rendered the rejection of a rectification application legally untenable. The order-sheet recorded that the rejection order could not be generated because of portal technical glitches, while the purported order carried a later handwritten signature date, creating an unresolved inconsistency. The High Court quashed the rejection and remanded the rectification application to the competent authority for fresh, reasoned disposal after giving the petitioner an adequate hearing and promptly communicating the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.