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...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed in violation of principles of natural justice by not granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The ITAT passed orders on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, but the respondent remained inactive for nearly five months. At the eleventh hour, on 19.07.2024, the respondent issued notice quantifying the penalty amount and calling upon the petitioner to pay, without providing adequate time for submitting contentions and documents despite requests. The respondent proceeded to pass orders on 30.07.2024 rejecting submissions and on 31.07.2024 imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c), in violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned orders on this ground.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed in violation of principles of natural justice by not granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The ITAT passed orders on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, but the respondent remained inactive for nearly five months. At the eleventh hour, on 19.07.2024, the respondent issued notice quantifying the penalty amount and calling upon the petitioner to pay, without providing adequate time for submitting contentions and documents despite requests. The respondent proceeded to pass orders on 30.07.2024 rejecting submissions and on 31.07.2024 imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c), in violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned orders on this ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
