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 demand in DRC-07 dated 31.12.2023, seeking recovery of tax already discharged, was prima facie unsustainable because Revenue's SCN/DRC-01 dated 12.04.2023 addressed only interest. Consequently, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account with the second respondent bank was declared unsustainable and must be lifted. The HC directed the first respondent to effect recovery solely of the interest component confirmed by the order dated 31.12.2023 directly from the petitioner's account and to raise the order of attachment forthwith to reflect that limited recovery. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that the demand in DRC-07 dated 31.12.2023, seeking recovery of tax already discharged, was prima facie unsustainable because Revenue's SCN/DRC-01 dated 12.04.2023 addressed only interest. Consequently, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account with the second respondent bank was declared unsustainable and must be lifted. The HC directed the first respondent to effect recovery solely of the interest component confirmed by the order dated 31.12.2023 directly from the petitioner's account and to raise the order of attachment forthwith to reflect that limited recovery. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.