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...
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
