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...
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Dismissal of an appeal by the appellate authority due to procedural defects, including the failure to submit a Board Resolution appointing the authorized signatory, the non-mentioning of the signatory's name, delay in filing the appeal, and incorrect mode of pre-deposit payment. The High Court held that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify these defects, which are minor procedural lapses. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with procedures without allowing the appellant to rectify the defects. The court also addressed the issue of pre-deposit payment through DRC-03, citing a previous case where the High Court directed the concerned authority to issue clarification on this industry-wide issue. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
