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...
Appealable order - Whether the communication would be considered as an ‘order’ for filing of appeal before the Tribunal - The Tribunal determined that the communication from the Superintendent was not a decision but merely conveyed the date fixed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had a right to know why their request for cross-examination was denied, which was not clearly stated in the communication. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that such communications could be considered as appealable orders, especially when the decision on cross-examination was neither accepted nor denied by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly filed the appeal before them.
Appealable order - Whether the communication would be considered as an ‘order’ for filing of appeal before the Tribunal - The Tribunal determined that the communication from the Superintendent was not a decision but merely conveyed the date fixed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had a right to know why their request for cross-examination was denied, which was not clearly stated in the communication. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that such communications could be considered as appealable orders, especially when the decision on cross-examination was neither accepted nor denied by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly filed the appeal before them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
