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...
HC set aside the impugned appellate rejection and allowed the petition by way of remand. The appellate order had dismissed the Appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement based on an alleged shortfall (required ~Rs.12,76,000; deposited Rs.8.62 lakhs) without prior notice or an opportunity to remedy the deficit, thereby infringing principles of natural justice. Although the Petitioner received a hearing on the merits, the authority failed to notify the Petitioner of the procedural shortfall or afford a reasonable chance to make good the deposit. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after giving the Petitioner notice and an opportunity to cure any shortfall.
HC set aside the impugned appellate rejection and allowed the petition by way of remand. The appellate order had dismissed the Appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement based on an alleged shortfall (required ~Rs.12,76,000; deposited Rs.8.62 lakhs) without prior notice or an opportunity to remedy the deficit, thereby infringing principles of natural justice. Although the Petitioner received a hearing on the merits, the authority failed to notify the Petitioner of the procedural shortfall or afford a reasonable chance to make good the deposit. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after giving the Petitioner notice and an opportunity to cure any shortfall.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
