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...
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner has replied to the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has not asked for a speaking order - Having given up the right to ask for a speaking order, the petitioner cannot now turn around and question the Impugned Order by stating that it has been passed over-looking the safeguard prescribed in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited. Further, case also does not warrant a speaking order in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Court. - HC
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner has replied to the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has not asked for a speaking order - Having given up the right to ask for a speaking order, the petitioner cannot now turn around and question the Impugned Order by stating that it has been passed over-looking the safeguard prescribed in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited. Further, case also does not warrant a speaking order in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Court. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.