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 court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
