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...
Conduct of Reassessment Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - The High court found that the reassessment proceedings were conducted in great haste, violating the principles of natural justice. The Additional Commissioner granted permission to the Assessing Officer on 18.3.2023, and the notice was issued on 22.3.2023, served on the petitioner on 24.3.2023, with the reassessment order passed on 28.3.2023. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as only two days were provided to respond to the reassessment notice. The court held that such a procedure undermined the trust in the rule of law and was unacceptable.
Conduct of Reassessment Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - The High court found that the reassessment proceedings were conducted in great haste, violating the principles of natural justice. The Additional Commissioner granted permission to the Assessing Officer on 18.3.2023, and the notice was issued on 22.3.2023, served on the petitioner on 24.3.2023, with the reassessment order passed on 28.3.2023. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as only two days were provided to respond to the reassessment notice. The court held that such a procedure undermined the trust in the rule of law and was unacceptable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
