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 allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority's decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.
The HC allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019, and remanded the matter to the AAR for fresh consideration. The court found a violation of natural justice principles as the Appellate Authority improperly considered the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates without affording the Respondents an opportunity to challenge the evidence through cross-examination or to present their own evidence. The evidence was first introduced at the appellate stage, depriving the Respondents of a fair chance to contest it. Due to these procedural irregularities and the untested nature of the evidence, the HC deemed it unsafe to rely on the Appellate Authority's decision and directed a rehearing in accordance with law and on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
