Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
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.