https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464501 Karnataka HC held that the tax authority (respondent No.1) must first adjudicate the petitioner's jurisdictional objections before initiating further proceedings; its referral to the transfer pricing officer (respondent No.2) was premature and showed lack of application of mind. The recorded reasons for reopening under s.147 did not disclose escapement of income due to transfer pricing but related to s.14A disallowance, so the s.92CA notice issued by respondent No.2 was quashed. Respondent No.1 was directed to decide the petitioner's objections dated 15.10.2018 expeditiously. en-us Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2025 19:40:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464501 Karnataka HC held that the tax authority (respondent No.1) must first adjudicate the petitioner's jurisdictional objections before initiating further proceedings; its referral to the transfer pricing officer (respondent No.2) was premature and showed lack of application of mind. The recorded reasons for reopening under s.147 did not disclose escapement of income due to transfer pricing but related to s.14A disallowance, so the s.92CA notice issued by respondent No.2 was quashed. Respondent No.1 was directed to decide the petitioner's objections dated 15.10.2018 expeditiously. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464501