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 jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually incorrect information or disregard the taxpayer's specific explanation. Aggregating distinct information-portal entries as escaped income, when only one entry was relevant, showed non-application of mind; the eventual addition also did not match the aggregated amount or one entry. Reopening on that premise was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to verify the information before assuming jurisdiction and did not address the objection. The reassessment order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Reassessment jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually incorrect information or disregard the taxpayer's specific explanation. Aggregating distinct information-portal entries as escaped income, when only one entry was relevant, showed non-application of mind; the eventual addition also did not match the aggregated amount or one entry. Reopening on that premise was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to verify the information before assuming jurisdiction and did not address the objection. The reassessment order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.