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 Revenue's decision to adjust the refund due to the petitioner for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 against the stayed demand for the assessment year 2015-16 was arbitrary. The court noted that granting stay of recovery subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding tax demand was in accordance with the CBDT's instructions. Adjusting refunds against the stayed demand would place the assessee entitled to a refund in a disadvantageous position compared to those without refunds. There was no allegation that the petitioner was alienating assets or unable to pay the disputed demand if confirmed. The court directed the Revenue to refund the amount due with applicable interest for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 within eight weeks.
The High Court held that the Revenue's decision to adjust the refund due to the petitioner for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 against the stayed demand for the assessment year 2015-16 was arbitrary. The court noted that granting stay of recovery subject to payment of 20% of the outstanding tax demand was in accordance with the CBDT's instructions. Adjusting refunds against the stayed demand would place the assessee entitled to a refund in a disadvantageous position compared to those without refunds. There was no allegation that the petitioner was alienating assets or unable to pay the disputed demand if confirmed. The court directed the Revenue to refund the amount due with applicable interest for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2017-18 within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
