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...
Recovery proceedings u/s 263 were challenged. The Tribunal directed inquiries regarding the correctness of the valuation report, but these directions were allegedly not followed in the assessment order passed on remand. The High Court held that recovery should await the disposal of the appeal, as the demand was based on an assessment order passed prior to the Tribunal's order. 20% of the amounts had already been recovered, and no further recovery would be carried out based on the impugned assessment until the appeal is disposed of. If the assessment is set aside, the assessee would be entitled to a refund along with interest, either as per statute or the interest paid in the cash credit account, whichever is higher. If the assessment is upheld, the assessee would be saved from interest on the amount recovered during the intervening period. There was no need to direct a refund of the 20% already recovered.
Recovery proceedings u/s 263 were challenged. The Tribunal directed inquiries regarding the correctness of the valuation report, but these directions were allegedly not followed in the assessment order passed on remand. The High Court held that recovery should await the disposal of the appeal, as the demand was based on an assessment order passed prior to the Tribunal's order. 20% of the amounts had already been recovered, and no further recovery would be carried out based on the impugned assessment until the appeal is disposed of. If the assessment is set aside, the assessee would be entitled to a refund along with interest, either as per statute or the interest paid in the cash credit account, whichever is higher. If the assessment is upheld, the assessee would be saved from interest on the amount recovered during the intervening period. There was no need to direct a refund of the 20% already recovered.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.