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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
