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...
Profits from an eligible windmill unit's electricity transferred for captive consumption qualify for deduction under section 80IA. The profit must be computed using the rate charged by the Electricity Board to consumers, rather than the lower rate paid by the Board to generating companies. Payments were not liable to disallowance merely because payees could not be produced after a substantial lapse of time or because expenditure had increased over earlier years. The nature of payees, including labourers, contractors and job workers, and the fact that several payments were below the tax-deduction threshold, precluded treatment of the payments as unexplained. Deduction for captive wind-generated electricity and the payment claims were consequently accepted.
Profits from an eligible windmill unit's electricity transferred for captive consumption qualify for deduction under section 80IA. The profit must be computed using the rate charged by the Electricity Board to consumers, rather than the lower rate paid by the Board to generating companies. Payments were not liable to disallowance merely because payees could not be produced after a substantial lapse of time or because expenditure had increased over earlier years. The nature of payees, including labourers, contractors and job workers, and the fact that several payments were below the tax-deduction threshold, precluded treatment of the payments as unexplained. Deduction for captive wind-generated electricity and the payment claims were consequently accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.