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...
Penalty levied u/s 271D - assessee has availed cash loan in contravention of provision of section 269SS - Assessee has submitted that though the assessee has initially availed loans from close relatives, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted - The Tribunal found the explanations offered by the appellant reasonable, especially considering the confirmation letters from the lenders, and the circumstances surrounding the transactions. Accordingly, ITAT directed the AO to delete the penalty.
Penalty levied u/s 271D - assessee has availed cash loan in contravention of provision of section 269SS - Assessee has submitted that though the assessee has initially availed loans from close relatives, which were subsequently the loans, were treated as gift and credited to his capital account, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271D of the Act is unwarranted - The Tribunal found the explanations offered by the appellant reasonable, especially considering the confirmation letters from the lenders, and the circumstances surrounding the transactions. Accordingly, ITAT directed the AO to delete the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.