Marketing support and subcontracted client contracts: no agency permanent establishment under Article 5 DTAA; arm's-length pricing bars profit attribu...
Transfer pricing comparables selection and working capital adjustment u/r 10B(1)(e)(iii), remanded for recomputation with rejected comparables include...
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
