Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147, where the reasons recorded were based on audit objections raised by the internal audit party regarding underassessment of income and default determination of Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a markup of 12% on direct costs, but the audit objection suggested reducing it to 9.17% after accounting for foreign exchange risk of 1%. The court held that the TPO's order was detailed, considering all aspects, and the audit objection amounted to a mere change of opinion without any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts. Since the impugned notice was issued beyond four years, the respondent could not have assumed jurisdiction based on audit objections. Regarding the reduced exchange gain on sale of shares, the assessee made full disclosure, and there was no failure to disclose material facts, preventing the respondent from reopening the assessment u/s 147's proviso. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147, where the reasons recorded were based on audit objections raised by the internal audit party regarding underassessment of income and default determination of Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a markup of 12% on direct costs, but the audit objection suggested reducing it to 9.17% after accounting for foreign exchange risk of 1%. The court held that the TPO's order was detailed, considering all aspects, and the audit objection amounted to a mere change of opinion without any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts. Since the impugned notice was issued beyond four years, the respondent could not have assumed jurisdiction based on audit objections. Regarding the reduced exchange gain on sale of shares, the assessee made full disclosure, and there was no failure to disclose material facts, preventing the respondent from reopening the assessment u/s 147's proviso. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.