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 Calcutta High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging the cancellation of registration u/s non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The court noted the absence of an appeal by the petitioner, allowing the revenue to argue the availability of an alternative remedy, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. Acknowledging the impact of the pandemic on business operations and return filings, the court emphasized the need for a sympathetic approach. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order, restoring the petitioner's registration and directing the filing of returns from a specified period. Failure to comply within three weeks would result in automatic re-cancellation. The petition was disposed of accordingly, ensuring justice while balancing the interests of the petitioner and the government.
The Calcutta High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging the cancellation of registration u/s non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. The court noted the absence of an appeal by the petitioner, allowing the revenue to argue the availability of an alternative remedy, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. Acknowledging the impact of the pandemic on business operations and return filings, the court emphasized the need for a sympathetic approach. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation order, restoring the petitioner's registration and directing the filing of returns from a specified period. Failure to comply within three weeks would result in automatic re-cancellation. The petition was disposed of accordingly, ensuring justice while balancing the interests of the petitioner and the government.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
