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...
Section 56(2)(ix) applies only when both statutory conditions coexist: a sum is received as an advance during negotiations for transfer of a capital asset, and the sum is subsequently forfeited because the transfer does not occur. Advances provided for locating, procuring and acquiring land for business projects were characterised as relating to stock-in-trade, rather than a capital asset, and therefore fell outside the provision. Mere lapse of time and absence of a refund claim did not establish forfeiture, particularly where the amounts remained recorded as liabilities and were confirmed by the payers. The addition was consequently deleted, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Section 56(2)(ix) applies only when both statutory conditions coexist: a sum is received as an advance during negotiations for transfer of a capital asset, and the sum is subsequently forfeited because the transfer does not occur. Advances provided for locating, procuring and acquiring land for business projects were characterised as relating to stock-in-trade, rather than a capital asset, and therefore fell outside the provision. Mere lapse of time and absence of a refund claim did not establish forfeiture, particularly where the amounts remained recorded as liabilities and were confirmed by the payers. The addition was consequently deleted, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
