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...
In a charitable institution's assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.
In a charitable institution's assessment, the Tribunal held that application of current-year income and accumulated funds, as separately disclosed in the return and Form 10B and verified in scrutiny, could not be disallowed on a supposed mismatch; once the Assessing Officer recorded that there was no difference between the two, the earlier prima facie adjustment under section 143(1) had no surviving basis and the claim was allowed in full. It also held that no fresh claim was being raised on appeal, so Goetze (India) was inapplicable. The final computation wrongly duplicated the same income components, inflating the taxable base; tax under section 115BBI and interest under sections 234B and 234C were consequential and had to be recomputed. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
