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...
ITAT held that receipts characterised as fees for technical services could not be taxed in India under the residuary Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because the treaty lacks a specific FTS article; such income was treated as business income, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the related addition was deleted. It remitted the section 234A interest issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual filing date and directed that no interest would arise if the return was filed within the prescribed or extended time, with section 234B interest consequential. The challenge to initiation of penalty under section 270A was dismissed as premature.
ITAT held that receipts characterised as fees for technical services could not be taxed in India under the residuary Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because the treaty lacks a specific FTS article; such income was treated as business income, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the related addition was deleted. It remitted the section 234A interest issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual filing date and directed that no interest would arise if the return was filed within the prescribed or extended time, with section 234B interest consequential. The challenge to initiation of penalty under section 270A was dismissed as premature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
