Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
A writ petitioner sought to set aside rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and to compel acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that when the statute caps condonation, the appellate authority lacks power to admit an appeal filed after the aggregate period, and the HC's Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be used to override substantive limitation provisions or invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the outer limit; consequently, no direction could be issued to entertain the belated appeal. Having opted for the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner could not seek writ scrutiny of the original order except on jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not shown; the petition was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
