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 quashed the assessment order dated 06.08.2024, holding that the Assessing Authority violated the principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner despite a specific request. Although the show-cause notice indicated 'NA' for personal hearing, the petitioner marked 'Yes' in the reply and sought an opportunity. The Court ruled that any previous opportunity before issuing the show-cause notice was inconsequential. The impending expiry of the limitation period did not justify denying a hearing. The authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The High Court quashed the assessment order dated 06.08.2024, holding that the Assessing Authority violated the principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner despite a specific request. Although the show-cause notice indicated 'NA' for personal hearing, the petitioner marked 'Yes' in the reply and sought an opportunity. The Court ruled that any previous opportunity before issuing the show-cause notice was inconsequential. The impending expiry of the limitation period did not justify denying a hearing. The authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
