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 dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds, holding that an effective alternate remedy existed through statutory appeal to the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeal) against the adjudicating authority's order. While acknowledging that the rule against entertaining Article 226 petitions when statutory appellate remedies are available is not rigid and exceptions exist per Supreme Court precedents, the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention. The appellant received adequate opportunity to present submissions both before and after the show cause notice, with statements recorded and replies submitted during adjudication under statutory provisions. No violation of natural justice principles occurred. The appeal was dismissed with no grounds found to interfere with the Single Bench order.
The HC dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds, holding that an effective alternate remedy existed through statutory appeal to the Commissioner, Central Tax (Appeal) against the adjudicating authority's order. While acknowledging that the rule against entertaining Article 226 petitions when statutory appellate remedies are available is not rigid and exceptions exist per Supreme Court precedents, the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention. The appellant received adequate opportunity to present submissions both before and after the show cause notice, with statements recorded and replies submitted during adjudication under statutory provisions. No violation of natural justice principles occurred. The appeal was dismissed with no grounds found to interfere with the Single Bench order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
