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...
Blocked input tax credit on construction of immovable property remained unavailable where the taxpayer was engaged in renting immovable property, used works contract services for construction, and the credit fell within clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5). The Court also treated the claim as belated because the credit was not taken within the statutory time limit under Section 16. It held that a unilateral letter proposing availment did not amount to departmental approval, and that availing a much larger credit without concurrence justified invocation of fraud and suppression, the extended limitation period, and Section 74. The challenge to the common notice covering multiple tax periods also failed.
Blocked input tax credit on construction of immovable property remained unavailable where the taxpayer was engaged in renting immovable property, used works contract services for construction, and the credit fell within clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5). The Court also treated the claim as belated because the credit was not taken within the statutory time limit under Section 16. It held that a unilateral letter proposing availment did not amount to departmental approval, and that availing a much larger credit without concurrence justified invocation of fraud and suppression, the extended limitation period, and Section 74. The challenge to the common notice covering multiple tax periods also failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
