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 petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application on 2.01.2020 after receiving a deficiency memo. The High Court held that the original refund application filed on 17.09.2018 would be considered a proper refund application within the limitation period, and the fresh refund application filed pursuant to the deficiency memo would be considered a continuation of the first refund application. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 rejecting the refund application on the ground of limitation was quashed and set aside, and the refund application filed on 17.09.2018 was restored for consideration on merits by the proper officer in accordance with the law.
The petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application on 2.01.2020 after receiving a deficiency memo. The High Court held that the original refund application filed on 17.09.2018 would be considered a proper refund application within the limitation period, and the fresh refund application filed pursuant to the deficiency memo would be considered a continuation of the first refund application. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 rejecting the refund application on the ground of limitation was quashed and set aside, and the refund application filed on 17.09.2018 was restored for consideration on merits by the proper officer in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
