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 held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
The HC held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
