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...
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT Delhi held that interest levied u/s 220(2) on non-payment of FBT demand, adjusted against a refund due, was not justified as no intimation or notice of demand was served on the assessee regarding the FBT liability u/s 115WE. The assessee had deposited the FBT demand suo motu, but it was still recovered from the refund along with interest. The tribunal found that the mere appearance of the demand on the e-filing portal did not absolve the Revenue from properly serving the intimation and demand notice. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of serving the notice. While the assessee had paid the FBT liability, it did not create an interest liability u/s 220(2). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
