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...
Rejection of a refund claim without considering the taxpayer's request for a personal hearing and without fixing a hearing date violated the prescribed statutory procedure. The High Court noted that the reply to the show cause notice had expressly sought a virtual hearing, yet the authority proceeded to reject the claim without granting that opportunity. As the Rules required hearing before a refund application could be rejected, the order was held to suffer from procedural breach. The refund rejection was quashed and the matter remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Rejection of a refund claim without considering the taxpayer's request for a personal hearing and without fixing a hearing date violated the prescribed statutory procedure. The High Court noted that the reply to the show cause notice had expressly sought a virtual hearing, yet the authority proceeded to reject the claim without granting that opportunity. As the Rules required hearing before a refund application could be rejected, the order was held to suffer from procedural breach. The refund rejection was quashed and the matter remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
