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...
The sole issue was whether the Department could adjust a tax refund for A.Y. 2023-24 against an outstanding demand for A.Y. 2022-23 without the specific higher-payment reference contemplated by the applicable Office Memoranda and s.245 procedure; the court held that, absent any reference to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to require a payment above the stay deposit, only the contractual stay deposit proportion (20%) of the A.Y. 2022-23 demand could lawfully be set off-20% (Rs. 1,03,46,296) retained and the remainder of the refund to be paid with interest within 30 days; the retained sum remains subject to the pending appeal and the residual demand remains stayed until its disposal. - HC
The sole issue was whether the Department could adjust a tax refund for A.Y. 2023-24 against an outstanding demand for A.Y. 2022-23 without the specific higher-payment reference contemplated by the applicable Office Memoranda and s.245 procedure; the court held that, absent any reference to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to require a payment above the stay deposit, only the contractual stay deposit proportion (20%) of the A.Y. 2022-23 demand could lawfully be set off-20% (Rs. 1,03,46,296) retained and the remainder of the refund to be paid with interest within 30 days; the retained sum remains subject to the pending appeal and the residual demand remains stayed until its disposal. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
