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 assessee delayed filing an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal contesting the assessment u/s 143(3), resulting in a 346-day delay. The ITAT held that there was no explanation for the initial 90-day delay, even after the assessee became aware of the delay on 28.10.2022. The assessee's affidavits dated 24.01.2023 and 18.04.2024 contradicted the Revenue's report regarding the date of knowledge of the assessment. The assessee's revised affidavit claiming knowledge on 24/11/2022 based on penalty orders u/ss 270A/271AAC was incomprehensible and reprehensible. The ITAT condemned the assessee's second affidavit, which appeared to be filed surreptitiously without bringing the changed date to the ITAT's notice, as clearly false and an attempt to mislead the court. The ITAT allowed the assessee time to produce evidence and cross-examine the deponent, but no material or deposition was advanced. With the affidavits being found false and no reasonable cause for the delay, the ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The assessee delayed filing an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal contesting the assessment u/s 143(3), resulting in a 346-day delay. The ITAT held that there was no explanation for the initial 90-day delay, even after the assessee became aware of the delay on 28.10.2022. The assessee's affidavits dated 24.01.2023 and 18.04.2024 contradicted the Revenue's report regarding the date of knowledge of the assessment. The assessee's revised affidavit claiming knowledge on 24/11/2022 based on penalty orders u/ss 270A/271AAC was incomprehensible and reprehensible. The ITAT condemned the assessee's second affidavit, which appeared to be filed surreptitiously without bringing the changed date to the ITAT's notice, as clearly false and an attempt to mislead the court. The ITAT allowed the assessee time to produce evidence and cross-examine the deponent, but no material or deposition was advanced. With the affidavits being found false and no reasonable cause for the delay, the ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
