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 held that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was beyond the time limitation prescribed u/s 149(1). The Revenue's contention that the non-obstante clause u/s 150 permitted issuance of the notice, premised on the assumption that the High Court's previous order dismissing the Revenue's appeal contained findings and directions for commencing proceedings u/s 147, was rejected. The Court clarified that its previous order could not be construed as permitting reopening of assessments beyond the period stipulated u/s 149(1) or where necessary conditions for invoking Sections 147 and 148 were not satisfied. Consequently, the time limitation u/s 149(1) was applicable, rendering the impugned notice invalid.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was beyond the time limitation prescribed u/s 149(1). The Revenue's contention that the non-obstante clause u/s 150 permitted issuance of the notice, premised on the assumption that the High Court's previous order dismissing the Revenue's appeal contained findings and directions for commencing proceedings u/s 147, was rejected. The Court clarified that its previous order could not be construed as permitting reopening of assessments beyond the period stipulated u/s 149(1) or where necessary conditions for invoking Sections 147 and 148 were not satisfied. Consequently, the time limitation u/s 149(1) was applicable, rendering the impugned notice invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
