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...
Unexplained income - whether withdrawals in the name of the partners of the firm represents the unaccounted income of the firm? - The Tribunal first looked into Section 292C of the Act and thereafter, noticed from the materials on record that the note in question was duly signed not only by all the partners of the firm, but also by three witnesses. The names of the partnership firm also figured in it. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the withdrawal of the money was from the firm. - No substantial law against the Additions confirmed by the ITAT - HC
Unexplained income - whether withdrawals in the name of the partners of the firm represents the unaccounted income of the firm? - The Tribunal first looked into Section 292C of the Act and thereafter, noticed from the materials on record that the note in question was duly signed not only by all the partners of the firm, but also by three witnesses. The names of the partnership firm also figured in it. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the withdrawal of the money was from the firm. - No substantial law against the Additions confirmed by the ITAT - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.