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...
Imported technical know-how from a foreign entity was not taxable as intellectual property service on reverse charge because the alleged intellectual property was not shown to be recognised under Indian law; the demand was therefore unsustainable and dropped. A composite engineering development arrangement was not taxable as consulting engineering service because the agreement involved joint development, design, detailing, prototype work and production support rather than advice, consultancy or technical assistance simpliciter; the demand was set aside. As both demands failed, issues of limitation, revenue neutrality, interest and penalty did not survive.
Imported technical know-how from a foreign entity was not taxable as intellectual property service on reverse charge because the alleged intellectual property was not shown to be recognised under Indian law; the demand was therefore unsustainable and dropped. A composite engineering development arrangement was not taxable as consulting engineering service because the agreement involved joint development, design, detailing, prototype work and production support rather than advice, consultancy or technical assistance simpliciter; the demand was set aside. As both demands failed, issues of limitation, revenue neutrality, interest and penalty did not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.