Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Rectification of a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had provided specific details and facts regarding the nature of alleged Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and during the personal hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which were not considered while passing the order. The High Court held that if an order is passed without considering the materials on record, and subsequently brought to the attention of the Income Tax Authority u/s 154, it is open for the Authority to rectify such a mistake. The DRP, after considering the previously unconsidered materials, concluded that trade discounts, warranty expenses, and packing expenses should be excluded from AMP expenses for transfer pricing comparison. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the DRP's jurisdiction u/s 154 to rectify the mistake, as it constituted a non-consideration of material on record. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Rectification of a mistake apparent from the record u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had provided specific details and facts regarding the nature of alleged Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and during the personal hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which were not considered while passing the order. The High Court held that if an order is passed without considering the materials on record, and subsequently brought to the attention of the Income Tax Authority u/s 154, it is open for the Authority to rectify such a mistake. The DRP, after considering the previously unconsidered materials, concluded that trade discounts, warranty expenses, and packing expenses should be excluded from AMP expenses for transfer pricing comparison. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the DRP's jurisdiction u/s 154 to rectify the mistake, as it constituted a non-consideration of material on record. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.