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...
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
