Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The ITAT set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
