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 set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
