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...
Reassessment of an infrastructure deduction claim under section 80-IA was considered invalid on three grounds. Eligibility could not be denied by treating an Indian-registered undertaking as foreign-owned merely because its shares were held by a foreign parent; the recorded reasons also failed to consider development of crane facilities and earlier treatment of the container-terminal business. Reopening after scrutiny on the basis of disclosed and previously examined material amounted to a change of opinion, absent new tangible material. Reassessment founded solely on a revenue audit objection was also treated as legally unsustainable. The reassessment notice, order rejecting objections, and consequential draft assessment proceedings were quashed.
Reassessment of an infrastructure deduction claim under section 80-IA was considered invalid on three grounds. Eligibility could not be denied by treating an Indian-registered undertaking as foreign-owned merely because its shares were held by a foreign parent; the recorded reasons also failed to consider development of crane facilities and earlier treatment of the container-terminal business. Reopening after scrutiny on the basis of disclosed and previously examined material amounted to a change of opinion, absent new tangible material. Reassessment founded solely on a revenue audit objection was also treated as legally unsustainable. The reassessment notice, order rejecting objections, and consequential draft assessment proceedings were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
