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...
Reassessment based only on information from the Investigation Wing and a third-party statement was found unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had no independent tangible material to form his own belief of escapement. The Tribunal held that mere reliance on borrowed satisfaction and post facto notices to alleged suppliers did not justify reopening under sections 147 and 148. It also held that an addition for alleged bogus purchases could not be made under section 68 when the purchases and corresponding sales were already recorded in the books, as that would amount to double addition. Both appeals were allowed and the section 68 addition was deleted.
Reassessment based only on information from the Investigation Wing and a third-party statement was found unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had no independent tangible material to form his own belief of escapement. The Tribunal held that mere reliance on borrowed satisfaction and post facto notices to alleged suppliers did not justify reopening under sections 147 and 148. It also held that an addition for alleged bogus purchases could not be made under section 68 when the purchases and corresponding sales were already recorded in the books, as that would amount to double addition. Both appeals were allowed and the section 68 addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
