https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761382 A revisionary order under Section 263 could not be sustained where the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to rebut the core allegation that it was a conduit company used for treaty shopping. Although the show-cause notice referred to possible lack of enquiry on issues such as permanent establishment, fees for technical services, and the Singapore entity's commercial substance, the decisive conclusion of conduit status and absence of commercial substance was not specifically put to the assessee before the order was passed. An order causing material prejudice cannot stand when the affected party has not been heard on the very basis of the proposed action; the Tribunal was therefore correct in setting aside the revisionary order. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Feb 2025 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761382 A revisionary order under Section 263 could not be sustained where the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to rebut the core allegation that it was a conduit company used for treaty shopping. Although the show-cause notice referred to possible lack of enquiry on issues such as permanent establishment, fees for technical services, and the Singapore entity's commercial substance, the decisive conclusion of conduit status and absence of commercial substance was not specifically put to the assessee before the order was passed. An order causing material prejudice cannot stand when the affected party has not been heard on the very basis of the proposed action; the Tribunal was therefore correct in setting aside the revisionary order. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761382