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...
The reassessment procedure under section 148 was held invalid where the assessee was not supplied the adverse material relied upon for the section 148A(b) notice and the order under section 148A(d) did not deal with the factual objections raised in reply. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought the material said to connect it with accommodation entries, yet only a general narration was furnished and the reply was not meaningfully considered. Because the statutory pre-notice process was not properly followed, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was vitiated. The notice under section 148, the section 148A(d) order, and the reassessment were quashed.
The reassessment procedure under section 148 was held invalid where the assessee was not supplied the adverse material relied upon for the section 148A(b) notice and the order under section 148A(d) did not deal with the factual objections raised in reply. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought the material said to connect it with accommodation entries, yet only a general narration was furnished and the reply was not meaningfully considered. Because the statutory pre-notice process was not properly followed, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was vitiated. The notice under section 148, the section 148A(d) order, and the reassessment were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
