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...
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - Statement of the assessee recorded during investigation leads to the irresistible conclusion that the assessee has not discharged his onus to prove that the entire transaction was genuine because it is incomprehensible that a person, assessee in this case, who is constantly in touch with the person since 25.06.2012 when he has purchased the scrips by making payment through undisclosed cash, then got the scrips dematerialized on 30.12.2013 only after legalizing the amount through IDS, 2016, thereafter he got the same amount returned and paid him the amount through cheque on 31.12.2013, but strangely stated that, “I do not particularly know the parties from whom or to whom he bought and sold the shares”. - CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO - AT
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - Statement of the assessee recorded during investigation leads to the irresistible conclusion that the assessee has not discharged his onus to prove that the entire transaction was genuine because it is incomprehensible that a person, assessee in this case, who is constantly in touch with the person since 25.06.2012 when he has purchased the scrips by making payment through undisclosed cash, then got the scrips dematerialized on 30.12.2013 only after legalizing the amount through IDS, 2016, thereafter he got the same amount returned and paid him the amount through cheque on 31.12.2013, but strangely stated that, “I do not particularly know the parties from whom or to whom he bought and sold the shares”. - CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
