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 held that the notices issued u/s 133(6) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice u/s 133(6), but it was erroneously stated that no reply was received. The court found that the amount in question was already included in the petitioner's income tax return and duly processed by the Assessing Officer. The court concluded that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper application of mind and was vitiated. Additionally, the court held that the officer who issued the notices lacked competence, as per the judgment in Jasjit Singh case, which ruled that notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer u/s 148 without conducting faceless assessment u/s 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices issued u/ss 133(6) and 148.
The court held that the notices issued u/s 133(6) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice u/s 133(6), but it was erroneously stated that no reply was received. The court found that the amount in question was already included in the petitioner's income tax return and duly processed by the Assessing Officer. The court concluded that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper application of mind and was vitiated. Additionally, the court held that the officer who issued the notices lacked competence, as per the judgment in Jasjit Singh case, which ruled that notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer u/s 148 without conducting faceless assessment u/s 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices issued u/ss 133(6) and 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
