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...
Penalty under section 43 of the Black Money Act is discretionary, because the word "may" and the requirement of hearing before levy show that non-disclosure of a foreign asset does not automatically attract punishment. Applying the bona fide omission principle, the Tribunal noted that the foreign investment was funded from disclosed mutual fund redemption proceeds remitted through a disclosed bank account under the LRS route, with related income or loss already reported in returns. As there was no undisclosed foreign income, no out-of-books asset, and no mala fide conduct, the failure to complete the relevant Schedule FA disclosure was treated as a technical and venial breach, and the penalties were deleted.
Penalty under section 43 of the Black Money Act is discretionary, because the word "may" and the requirement of hearing before levy show that non-disclosure of a foreign asset does not automatically attract punishment. Applying the bona fide omission principle, the Tribunal noted that the foreign investment was funded from disclosed mutual fund redemption proceeds remitted through a disclosed bank account under the LRS route, with related income or loss already reported in returns. As there was no undisclosed foreign income, no out-of-books asset, and no mala fide conduct, the failure to complete the relevant Schedule FA disclosure was treated as a technical and venial breach, and the penalties were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
