https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284806 The appeal succeeded as the court found jurisdictional errors in passing the assessment order under the wrong section, non-compliance with DRP directions, invalid adjustments under section 92CA, flawed selection of comparables, unsustainable working capital adjustments affecting ALP, failure to apply the proviso to section 92C(2), inappropriate selection of comparables with high turnover, DRP exceeding jurisdiction, and disputed interest levy under section 234B. The assessment order was quashed due to these legal flaws and errors. en-us Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284806 The appeal succeeded as the court found jurisdictional errors in passing the assessment order under the wrong section, non-compliance with DRP directions, invalid adjustments under section 92CA, flawed selection of comparables, unsustainable working capital adjustments affecting ALP, failure to apply the proviso to section 92C(2), inappropriate selection of comparables with high turnover, DRP exceeding jurisdiction, and disputed interest levy under section 234B. The assessment order was quashed due to these legal flaws and errors. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284806