Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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...
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.