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...
Share premium received during the relevant previous year was treated as within the scope of the anti-abuse rule even though the shares had been allotted earlier, because the trigger is receipt of consideration in excess of face value in the year of receipt. At the same time, the addition could not stand where the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's discounted cash flow valuation without showing any defect, substituted no valid fair market value, and taxed the entire premium without proving any excess over fair market value. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's choice of valuation method and sustained no addition on that basis.
Share premium received during the relevant previous year was treated as within the scope of the anti-abuse rule even though the shares had been allotted earlier, because the trigger is receipt of consideration in excess of face value in the year of receipt. At the same time, the addition could not stand where the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's discounted cash flow valuation without showing any defect, substituted no valid fair market value, and taxed the entire premium without proving any excess over fair market value. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's choice of valuation method and sustained no addition on that basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
