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...
Pecuniary jurisdiction over statutory notices under section 143(2) must comply with CBDT instructions allocating cases by returned-income limits. Where an Income-tax Officer issues the notice despite the returned income exceeding that officer's prescribed limit, the defect concerns pecuniary rather than territorial jurisdiction; the territorial-jurisdiction objection rule does not apply. CBDT instructions bind the Department, and issue of a jurisdictional notice by an officer without pecuniary authority is an illegality, not a procedural irregularity capable of validation under section 292BB. The notices and consequential assessment were therefore treated as void from inception and quashed; other grounds remained academic.
Pecuniary jurisdiction over statutory notices under section 143(2) must comply with CBDT instructions allocating cases by returned-income limits. Where an Income-tax Officer issues the notice despite the returned income exceeding that officer's prescribed limit, the defect concerns pecuniary rather than territorial jurisdiction; the territorial-jurisdiction objection rule does not apply. CBDT instructions bind the Department, and issue of a jurisdictional notice by an officer without pecuniary authority is an illegality, not a procedural irregularity capable of validation under section 292BB. The notices and consequential assessment were therefore treated as void from inception and quashed; other grounds remained academic.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.