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...
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
