Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Return-processing adjustments cannot disallow diminution in the value of a business-purpose investment in a wholly owned subsidiary solely because a tax audit report describes it as capital expenditure where binding jurisdictional precedent permits an analogous business loss. Once an intimation is issued after considering the taxpayer's response, the Centralised Processing Centre performs a quasi-judicial function and must follow binding High Court law. Failure to consider a jurisdictional High Court decision delivered before the intimation, and specifically raised in a rectification application, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The resulting disallowance requires rectification in accordance with that precedent.
Return-processing adjustments cannot disallow diminution in the value of a business-purpose investment in a wholly owned subsidiary solely because a tax audit report describes it as capital expenditure where binding jurisdictional precedent permits an analogous business loss. Once an intimation is issued after considering the taxpayer's response, the Centralised Processing Centre performs a quasi-judicial function and must follow binding High Court law. Failure to consider a jurisdictional High Court decision delivered before the intimation, and specifically raised in a rectification application, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The resulting disallowance requires rectification in accordance with that precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
