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...
Allocation of pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 is described as a jurisdictional requirement for issuing a scrutiny notice under section 143(2), rather than a mere procedural formality. For a non-corporate assessee in a metro city whose returned income is below the prescribed limit, jurisdiction lies with the ITO, while a notice issued by the ACIT is treated as lacking legal authority. The notes further state that such an additional legal ground may be admitted when it goes to the root of the matter and requires no further factual verification. Without a fresh notice from the competent officer, the assessment is described as vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Allocation of pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 is described as a jurisdictional requirement for issuing a scrutiny notice under section 143(2), rather than a mere procedural formality. For a non-corporate assessee in a metro city whose returned income is below the prescribed limit, jurisdiction lies with the ITO, while a notice issued by the ACIT is treated as lacking legal authority. The notes further state that such an additional legal ground may be admitted when it goes to the root of the matter and requires no further factual verification. Without a fresh notice from the competent officer, the assessment is described as vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
