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 challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
The petitioner challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
