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...
HC set aside an ex parte adjudication under Section 73 where the show cause notice raised factual disputes on return mismatches, excess input tax credit, supplier default, delayed tax payment and related interest. It held that the petitioner had to be heard on merits before such discrepancies were decided, especially where the petitioner claimed material existed to rebut the alleged defaults. Because allowing the order to stand would cause serious financial prejudice, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to respond, and the consequential bank attachment was directed to be withdrawn.
HC set aside an ex parte adjudication under Section 73 where the show cause notice raised factual disputes on return mismatches, excess input tax credit, supplier default, delayed tax payment and related interest. It held that the petitioner had to be heard on merits before such discrepancies were decided, especially where the petitioner claimed material existed to rebut the alleged defaults. Because allowing the order to stand would cause serious financial prejudice, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to respond, and the consequential bank attachment was directed to be withdrawn.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
