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 petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders, much beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, without any explanation for the delay. While there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period, and any delay is required to be explained. Since the petitioner failed to provide a justification for the inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the petition.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court as no case was made out to depart from the usual rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The key reasons were: 1) An alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order, although the petitioner contended violation of principles of natural justice. 2) The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned orders, much beyond the statutory limitation period for appeal, without any explanation for the delay. While there is no limitation for filing a petition under Article 226, such petitions must be instituted within a reasonable period, and any delay is required to be explained. Since the petitioner failed to provide a justification for the inordinate delay, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
