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...
Penalty for misreporting of income under section 270A could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed the interest income and the dispute concerned only eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and an addition or disallowance by itself does not establish misreporting; the Assessing Officer must show that the case falls within a specific statutory category. The assessee's explanation that incorrect PAN status caused a technical difficulty was found bona fide, and there was no material of false particulars or suppression. The penalty also failed because the notice mentioned only under-reporting, while the final levy was for under-reporting due to misreporting without specifying the relevant charge.
Penalty for misreporting of income under section 270A could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed the interest income and the dispute concerned only eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and an addition or disallowance by itself does not establish misreporting; the Assessing Officer must show that the case falls within a specific statutory category. The assessee's explanation that incorrect PAN status caused a technical difficulty was found bona fide, and there was no material of false particulars or suppression. The penalty also failed because the notice mentioned only under-reporting, while the final levy was for under-reporting due to misreporting without specifying the relevant charge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.