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 ITAT held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The notice issued u/s 263 was not validly served on the assessee, either through registered post or email, before the hearing date. The notices were served only after the hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the CIT(E)'s order was passed after the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 263(2) had expired. Relying on the judgments of M L Chains and Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd., the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the CIT(E)'s order due to invalid service of notice and the expiry of the limitation period.
The ITAT held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The notice issued u/s 263 was not validly served on the assessee, either through registered post or email, before the hearing date. The notices were served only after the hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the CIT(E)'s order was passed after the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 263(2) had expired. Relying on the judgments of M L Chains and Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd., the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the CIT(E)'s order due to invalid service of notice and the expiry of the limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
