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 HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
The HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.