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...
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
