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...
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
