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...
A reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner believes further inquiry was desirable, where the Assessing Officer had examined the recorded reasons issue, considered contract notes, bank statements, computation and audited accounts, and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to section 263 does not apply absent a finding that the reassessment was made without any enquiry or verification. The reassessment was therefore not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly assumed; the revision order was quashed.
A reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner believes further inquiry was desirable, where the Assessing Officer had examined the recorded reasons issue, considered contract notes, bank statements, computation and audited accounts, and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to section 263 does not apply absent a finding that the reassessment was made without any enquiry or verification. The reassessment was therefore not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly assumed; the revision order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.