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...
An application under Section 119(2)(b) challenged refusal to permit filing a revised return beyond five years; the High Court found the taxpayer had pursued rectification within the five year window and had reasonably relied on rectification as the remedy. The court held the authority could not ignore the circular's temporal condition, treated the misdeclaration as a bona fide error without deciding revised return merits, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the revised return for the relevant assessment year in accordance with law.
An application under Section 119(2)(b) challenged refusal to permit filing a revised return beyond five years; the High Court found the taxpayer had pursued rectification within the five year window and had reasonably relied on rectification as the remedy. The court held the authority could not ignore the circular's temporal condition, treated the misdeclaration as a bona fide error without deciding revised return merits, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the revised return for the relevant assessment year in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
