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 High Court held that the appellate authority erred in enhancing the tax liability payable by the appellant/assessee in an appeal filed by the assessee without following the mandatory procedure u/s 107(11) of the Act. The assessing officer had quantified the tax liability at Rs.2,58,536.80, but imposed penalty on Rs.41,83,804.72. The appellate authority was required to consider the correctness of the tax liability fixed by the assessing officer and the penalty levied, but instead enhanced the tax liability without adhering to the statutory procedure. Consequently, the orders of both the appellate authority and assessing officer were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after following due process.
The High Court held that the appellate authority erred in enhancing the tax liability payable by the appellant/assessee in an appeal filed by the assessee without following the mandatory procedure u/s 107(11) of the Act. The assessing officer had quantified the tax liability at Rs.2,58,536.80, but imposed penalty on Rs.41,83,804.72. The appellate authority was required to consider the correctness of the tax liability fixed by the assessing officer and the penalty levied, but instead enhanced the tax liability without adhering to the statutory procedure. Consequently, the orders of both the appellate authority and assessing officer were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after following due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
