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 under section 148 was quashed because the recorded reasons were vague, factually inconsistent and unsupported by an independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on portal information and investigation material alleging fictitious profit, but the reassessment order treated the same figure differently and failed to maintain the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed. No live nexus was shown between the material and escapement of income, and the assessee's purchase, sale, bank and D-Mat records were not dislodged by adverse material. The reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction, so the reassessment was unsustainable and the merits were not examined.
Reassessment under section 148 was quashed because the recorded reasons were vague, factually inconsistent and unsupported by an independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on portal information and investigation material alleging fictitious profit, but the reassessment order treated the same figure differently and failed to maintain the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed. No live nexus was shown between the material and escapement of income, and the assessee's purchase, sale, bank and D-Mat records were not dislodged by adverse material. The reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction, so the reassessment was unsustainable and the merits were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
