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 requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor's representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees' provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.
Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor's representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees' provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
