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...
Protective assessment of seized jewellery requires independent evidence that the person in physical possession is its actual or beneficial owner where the same jewellery has been substantively assessed in the hands of a company claiming ownership. Physical possession and inability to prove another person's ownership do not displace the Revenue's substantive treatment when the individual consistently denies ownership and no positive material establishes ownership. Failure to pursue a first appeal does not cure the absence of evidence or transform a protective addition into a substantive charge. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted, and consequential interest was to be recomputed.
Protective assessment of seized jewellery requires independent evidence that the person in physical possession is its actual or beneficial owner where the same jewellery has been substantively assessed in the hands of a company claiming ownership. Physical possession and inability to prove another person's ownership do not displace the Revenue's substantive treatment when the individual consistently denies ownership and no positive material establishes ownership. Failure to pursue a first appeal does not cure the absence of evidence or transform a protective addition into a substantive charge. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted, and consequential interest was to be recomputed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
