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 Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
