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...
On a conjoint reading of the conveyance deed and consent terms, the assessee was found to have relinquished all rights, title, interest and possession in the entire larger land, so the consideration was treated as a global settlement for extinguishment of the whole bundle of rights. The Tribunal held that the assessee's development and possessory rights were themselves a capital asset, and their extinguishment amounted to a transfer. As the indexed cost claimed related to those intangible rights, not to ownership of the physical land, restriction of cost by reference only to the portion conveyed was unsustainable. The deletion of the addition was upheld.
On a conjoint reading of the conveyance deed and consent terms, the assessee was found to have relinquished all rights, title, interest and possession in the entire larger land, so the consideration was treated as a global settlement for extinguishment of the whole bundle of rights. The Tribunal held that the assessee's development and possessory rights were themselves a capital asset, and their extinguishment amounted to a transfer. As the indexed cost claimed related to those intangible rights, not to ownership of the physical land, restriction of cost by reference only to the portion conveyed was unsustainable. The deletion of the addition was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.