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...
Revisional jurisdiction under section 264 is benevolent and cannot be used to place an assessee in a worse position; the ITAT held that, while giving effect to the revision, the AO could not reopen matters already accepted and enhance the addition. On facts, the assessee's only income was salary received in cash, that source was undisputed, and the explanation that the balance demonetisation cash deposits came from past salary savings was treated as reasonable despite the absence of further documentation. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was deleted, and the connected duplicate appeal was dismissed.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 264 is benevolent and cannot be used to place an assessee in a worse position; the ITAT held that, while giving effect to the revision, the AO could not reopen matters already accepted and enhance the addition. On facts, the assessee's only income was salary received in cash, that source was undisputed, and the explanation that the balance demonetisation cash deposits came from past salary savings was treated as reasonable despite the absence of further documentation. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was deleted, and the connected duplicate appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.