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 writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner's registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative's conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing "if necessary" did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner's registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative's conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing "if necessary" did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.