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...
Arguable jurisdictional defects were identified in reassessment proceedings: the notice under Section 148 was challenged on the ground that only a Faceless Assessing Officer may issue such notices post 29 March 2022, rendering notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer prima facie void; this ground was held sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction. Separately, the notice gave only thirty days to file a return, whereas a statutory minimum three month period was asserted, which likewise raised a substantial jurisdictional objection. On these bases the High Court entertained the writ, issued rule, and granted interim relief restraining reassessment, demand and penalty notices pending final disposal.
Arguable jurisdictional defects were identified in reassessment proceedings: the notice under Section 148 was challenged on the ground that only a Faceless Assessing Officer may issue such notices post 29 March 2022, rendering notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer prima facie void; this ground was held sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction. Separately, the notice gave only thirty days to file a return, whereas a statutory minimum three month period was asserted, which likewise raised a substantial jurisdictional objection. On these bases the High Court entertained the writ, issued rule, and granted interim relief restraining reassessment, demand and penalty notices pending final disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
