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...
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to...
Reassessment quashed due to email issues. Petitioner to address income source for deposits, pay Rs.25L/year. Fresh orders for closed firm's assessment.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to non-filing of responses against notices issued, as old email ID was inaccessible. Court held petitioner deserves fair chance to address grievances regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of Income Tax Act for partnership firm that closed business. Petitioner must establish if huge deposits were accounted for. Impugned assessment orders quashed, case remitted to pass fresh orders. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- each for respective assessment years and file reply to Section 148A(b) notices within 4 months.
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to non-filing of responses against notices issued, as old email ID was inaccessible. Court held petitioner deserves fair chance to address grievances regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of Income Tax Act for partnership firm that closed business. Petitioner must establish if huge deposits were accounted for. Impugned assessment orders quashed, case remitted to pass fresh orders. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- each for respective assessment years and file reply to Section 148A(b) notices within 4 months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
