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...
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.