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...
For reassessment beyond three years, the Tribunal held that the recorded reasons must expressly satisfy the jurisdictional conditions in the proviso to section 148 and section 149(1)(b); vague references to an asset or books were insufficient, so the notices and consequential reassessments were void. It also held that material produced by a third person in response to a post-search summons under section 131 could not be treated as search material for Explanation 2 to section 148, and the Department had to follow section 148A if it wanted to rely on it. On the merits, blanket addition of two zeroes to all cash-book entries was rejected, though 16% profit estimation on supported unaccounted receipts was upheld; additions for land-development cash payments were sustained where corroborated, but an unsigned receipt issue was remitted for verification.
For reassessment beyond three years, the Tribunal held that the recorded reasons must expressly satisfy the jurisdictional conditions in the proviso to section 148 and section 149(1)(b); vague references to an asset or books were insufficient, so the notices and consequential reassessments were void. It also held that material produced by a third person in response to a post-search summons under section 131 could not be treated as search material for Explanation 2 to section 148, and the Department had to follow section 148A if it wanted to rely on it. On the merits, blanket addition of two zeroes to all cash-book entries was rejected, though 16% profit estimation on supported unaccounted receipts was upheld; additions for land-development cash payments were sustained where corroborated, but an unsigned receipt issue was remitted for verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
