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...
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
