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 Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
