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...
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Validity of refund sanction orders was examined with primary focus on procedural fairness and the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order. The court found the impugned administrative order failed to consider petitioner's submissions and lacked discussion showing the refund claim was legally incorrect; rejection rested on the department's inability to distinguish payment purpose without contrary material. Consequently the impugned order was held unsustainable for want of a reasoned decision and natural justice, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered or dealt with further to meet the ends of justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.