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...
Omission of refund-restricting Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without any saving clause rendered the omitted provision inapplicable to pending proceedings, including matters still before the Court or the adjudicating authority and orders not yet final, because they were not transactions past and closed. Applying the earlier Gujarat HC ratio, the Court held that the order-in-original and consequential action founded on the omitted rule could not be sustained. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order and subsequent action were quashed.
Omission of refund-restricting Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without any saving clause rendered the omitted provision inapplicable to pending proceedings, including matters still before the Court or the adjudicating authority and orders not yet final, because they were not transactions past and closed. Applying the earlier Gujarat HC ratio, the Court held that the order-in-original and consequential action founded on the omitted rule could not be sustained. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order and subsequent action were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
