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...
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.