Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
