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 adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, where there was a mismatch between the income tax return and the tax audit report filed by the assessee. The key issue was whether the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) could make adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) while processing the return without complying with the first proviso, which requires prior intimation to the assessee. The Tribunal held that any proposed adjustment necessitates prior intimation to the assessee, either in writing or electronically, as per the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). The CPC failed to issue such prior intimation before making the adjustment. Consequently, the impugned intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) was not in compliance with the provisos and was deemed invalid under the Act. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Validity of adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, where there was a mismatch between the income tax return and the tax audit report filed by the assessee. The key issue was whether the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) could make adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) while processing the return without complying with the first proviso, which requires prior intimation to the assessee. The Tribunal held that any proposed adjustment necessitates prior intimation to the assessee, either in writing or electronically, as per the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). The CPC failed to issue such prior intimation before making the adjustment. Consequently, the impugned intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) was not in compliance with the provisos and was deemed invalid under the Act. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
