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...
A constituent of joint ventures and consortiums formed to bid for government infrastructure contracts was treated as eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) because the arrangements were pass-through vehicles, with execution, risk, and profit sharing resting on the members in their agreed proportions. The absence of a direct contract in the assessee's own name did not defeat eligibility where its participation was substantively through the consortium contract. The Tribunal also held that the Explanation to section 80IA(13) excludes only pure works contracts; the assessee, having undertaken design, procurement, construction, commissioning, and operation and maintenance obligations while bearing entrepreneurial and investment risk, was a developer and not a works contractor. Deduction was therefore allowed for both assessment years.
A constituent of joint ventures and consortiums formed to bid for government infrastructure contracts was treated as eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) because the arrangements were pass-through vehicles, with execution, risk, and profit sharing resting on the members in their agreed proportions. The absence of a direct contract in the assessee's own name did not defeat eligibility where its participation was substantively through the consortium contract. The Tribunal also held that the Explanation to section 80IA(13) excludes only pure works contracts; the assessee, having undertaken design, procurement, construction, commissioning, and operation and maintenance obligations while bearing entrepreneurial and investment risk, was a developer and not a works contractor. Deduction was therefore allowed for both assessment years.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
