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 set aside the impugned order of adjudication and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of time limitation. However, the Court held that if an appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as barred by limitation, it is not considered an appeal in the eyes of law, and there would be no merger of the original order into the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The mere dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation does not preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside the impugned order of adjudication and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of time limitation. However, the Court held that if an appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as barred by limitation, it is not considered an appeal in the eyes of law, and there would be no merger of the original order into the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The mere dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation does not preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
