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...
Addition u/s 69B r.w.s.115BBE - unexplained investment - higher rate of tax - amount offered during survey - The ITAT held that the assessee has submitted the details of outflow of funds, the onus is clearly on the Assessing officer to discharge this burden and record a specific finding in this regard and once the same is done, the onus can be shifted to the assessee to explain the nature and source of such investment. - The Tribunal further held that, the statement of the partner of the assessee firm recorded u/s 131 during the course of survey and subsequent affirmation thereof by the assessee by way of surrender letter on a standalone basis and without any corroborative evidence doesn’t fulfill the statutory mandate of deeming provisions. - The income has been rightly offered to tax by the assessee.
Addition u/s 69B r.w.s.115BBE - unexplained investment - higher rate of tax - amount offered during survey - The ITAT held that the assessee has submitted the details of outflow of funds, the onus is clearly on the Assessing officer to discharge this burden and record a specific finding in this regard and once the same is done, the onus can be shifted to the assessee to explain the nature and source of such investment. - The Tribunal further held that, the statement of the partner of the assessee firm recorded u/s 131 during the course of survey and subsequent affirmation thereof by the assessee by way of surrender letter on a standalone basis and without any corroborative evidence doesn’t fulfill the statutory mandate of deeming provisions. - The income has been rightly offered to tax by the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
