Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Jurisdictional validity of the reopening notice was the central issue: the HC held the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked authority to issue the section 148 notice when a non-jurisdictional officer had issued the reopening notice, and consequently set aside the notice and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court rejected the Revenue's res judicata plea because earlier writs permitted raising the same Hexaware point before the DRP, and rejected the alternate-remedy objection since a jurisdictional challenge permits direct writ relief. An allegation of suppression concerning an interim order was dismissed as without merit.
Jurisdictional validity of the reopening notice was the central issue: the HC held the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked authority to issue the section 148 notice when a non-jurisdictional officer had issued the reopening notice, and consequently set aside the notice and allowed the assessee's appeal. The court rejected the Revenue's res judicata plea because earlier writs permitted raising the same Hexaware point before the DRP, and rejected the alternate-remedy objection since a jurisdictional challenge permits direct writ relief. An allegation of suppression concerning an interim order was dismissed as without merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.