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...
Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
