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 petitioner was entitled to apply under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act) as an appeal regarding disputed tax was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the date of filing the application. The eligibility to apply under the VSV Act is not contingent on the merits of the maintainability of the appeal. The mere pendency of an appeal concerning any disputed tax before the ITAT or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is sufficient to file a declaration u/s 4(1) of the VSV Act. The impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's declaration was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to consider the petitioner's declaration and undertaking in accordance with the applicable law.
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to apply under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act) as an appeal regarding disputed tax was pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the date of filing the application. The eligibility to apply under the VSV Act is not contingent on the merits of the maintainability of the appeal. The mere pendency of an appeal concerning any disputed tax before the ITAT or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is sufficient to file a declaration u/s 4(1) of the VSV Act. The impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's declaration was set aside, and the designated authority was directed to consider the petitioner's declaration and undertaking in accordance with the applicable law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
