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 quashed an ex-parte assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed without serving proper notice to the petitioner, finding it wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that only one operative assessment order can subsist for the same assessment period. A subsequent assessment order dated 12.07.2024, passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing and considering material produced, was deemed valid and tenable. The court emphasized that decisions made after hearing are more authoritative than default decisions, and taxpayers must have opportunity to present their case. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the ex-parte order while upholding the order passed on merits.
The HC quashed an ex-parte assessment order dated 02.07.2024 passed without serving proper notice to the petitioner, finding it wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that only one operative assessment order can subsist for the same assessment period. A subsequent assessment order dated 12.07.2024, passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing and considering material produced, was deemed valid and tenable. The court emphasized that decisions made after hearing are more authoritative than default decisions, and taxpayers must have opportunity to present their case. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the ex-parte order while upholding the order passed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
