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...
Income recognition - advances received from clients - AO observed that “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee, it was the duty of the assessee to route the same through the profit and loss account and in the absence of such course being taken, AO added the same amount to the total income of the assessee - The High Court held that, CIT(A) and ITAT have rightly concluded that the assessee received these advances in a fiduciary capacity for specific purposes, not as income. - It was not trading receipt. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was not under any legal obligation to show it as his receipts of money from the clients. The High court found no merit in the Revenue's reliance on Section 145, noting no factual basis indicating that the conditions of Section 145(3) were met.
Income recognition - advances received from clients - AO observed that “out of pocket expenses” had been exclusively kept out of the books and on reimbursement of the sum by the clients to the assessee, it was the duty of the assessee to route the same through the profit and loss account and in the absence of such course being taken, AO added the same amount to the total income of the assessee - The High Court held that, CIT(A) and ITAT have rightly concluded that the assessee received these advances in a fiduciary capacity for specific purposes, not as income. - It was not trading receipt. Therefore, the respondent/assessee was not under any legal obligation to show it as his receipts of money from the clients. The High court found no merit in the Revenue's reliance on Section 145, noting no factual basis indicating that the conditions of Section 145(3) were met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
