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...
Jurisdiction of AO - Validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) - No objection were filed within one month u/s 124 - The Appellate Tribunal found that the notices were indeed issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, and there was no dispute regarding this fact from the Revenue's side. However, the Revenue relied on Section 292BB, arguing that the absence of objection within the stipulated time period validated their actions. In response, the Tribunal referred to the case of ITO vs. Almak Finance P. Ltd., where it was held that actions taken by authorities lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio. Thus, failure to dispute jurisdiction under Section 124(3) did not preclude the appellant from challenging it later. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
Jurisdiction of AO - Validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) - No objection were filed within one month u/s 124 - The Appellate Tribunal found that the notices were indeed issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, and there was no dispute regarding this fact from the Revenue's side. However, the Revenue relied on Section 292BB, arguing that the absence of objection within the stipulated time period validated their actions. In response, the Tribunal referred to the case of ITO vs. Almak Finance P. Ltd., where it was held that actions taken by authorities lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio. Thus, failure to dispute jurisdiction under Section 124(3) did not preclude the appellant from challenging it later. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
