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 case involved the scope of limited scrutiny and the validity of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) attempted to convert the limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny. The Tribunal held that although the notice mentioned limited scrutiny, the subsequent paragraphs referred to scrutiny without specifying its limited nature. The AO identified the issue for examination as cash deposits during demonetization, indicating a limited purpose. To enlarge the scope and make other additions, the AO should have followed the procedure laid down by the CBDT's Instruction No. 5. Since the AO did not make any addition regarding cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee had deposited small accepted amounts, the assessment order was quashed for exceeding the AO's limited powers. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the need to follow due procedure for converting a limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny.
The case involved the scope of limited scrutiny and the validity of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) attempted to convert the limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny. The Tribunal held that although the notice mentioned limited scrutiny, the subsequent paragraphs referred to scrutiny without specifying its limited nature. The AO identified the issue for examination as cash deposits during demonetization, indicating a limited purpose. To enlarge the scope and make other additions, the AO should have followed the procedure laid down by the CBDT's Instruction No. 5. Since the AO did not make any addition regarding cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee had deposited small accepted amounts, the assessment order was quashed for exceeding the AO's limited powers. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the need to follow due procedure for converting a limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
