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 High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the reopening of assessment u/s 147, citing the petitioner's delayed compliance with notice u/s 148 and failure to challenge the re-assessment notice or reasons for reassessment. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appeal remedy precluded invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court noted factual issues requiring adjudication beyond Article 226 scope, such as delay in statutory audit and compliance with Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner's contention on the doctrine of merger was deemed misconceived. The Court refrained from opining on audit merits, urging the petitioner to pursue appellate remedy. The Court dismissed the writ applications, advising the petitioner to challenge the orders before the appellate authority, with the possibility of condoning the limitation period for filing appeals.
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the reopening of assessment u/s 147, citing the petitioner's delayed compliance with notice u/s 148 and failure to challenge the re-assessment notice or reasons for reassessment. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory appeal remedy precluded invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court noted factual issues requiring adjudication beyond Article 226 scope, such as delay in statutory audit and compliance with Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner's contention on the doctrine of merger was deemed misconceived. The Court refrained from opining on audit merits, urging the petitioner to pursue appellate remedy. The Court dismissed the writ applications, advising the petitioner to challenge the orders before the appellate authority, with the possibility of condoning the limitation period for filing appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
