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...
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.