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...
Entitlement for relief u/s 89(1) - Can be equated to refund amount or not - Employee under suspension from 01.03.1996 to 16.04.2007 got ‘subsistence allowance’ for the said period. - The court clarified that the relief u/s 89 of the Income Tax Act is a form of rebate or adjustment in the computation of tax liability, not a direct refundable amount. It highlighted that the relief aims to adjust the tax liability when income is received in arrears or advance, impacting the tax rate applied. - The court found no error in the Income Tax Department's calculation of the refund amount. It noted that after accounting for the relief u/s 89, the correct refundable amount was determined and paid to the petitioner.
Entitlement for relief u/s 89(1) - Can be equated to refund amount or not - Employee under suspension from 01.03.1996 to 16.04.2007 got ‘subsistence allowance’ for the said period. - The court clarified that the relief u/s 89 of the Income Tax Act is a form of rebate or adjustment in the computation of tax liability, not a direct refundable amount. It highlighted that the relief aims to adjust the tax liability when income is received in arrears or advance, impacting the tax rate applied. - The court found no error in the Income Tax Department's calculation of the refund amount. It noted that after accounting for the relief u/s 89, the correct refundable amount was determined and paid to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
