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...
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.