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...
Benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - The High held that, once the respondents had taken the principled position that the VSV Act would apply even in those matters where the limitation period for filing of appeals had not expired on the specified date, there can be no valid justification to either countenance or draw a distinction between an appeal and a revision. The acceptance of such a distinction would be wholly illogical quite apart from being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. - Since the petitioner has already deposited the entire disputed tax liability as computed in terms of the VSV Act, the Form 5 issued during the pendency of these proceedings is accorded finality.
Benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme - The High held that, once the respondents had taken the principled position that the VSV Act would apply even in those matters where the limitation period for filing of appeals had not expired on the specified date, there can be no valid justification to either countenance or draw a distinction between an appeal and a revision. The acceptance of such a distinction would be wholly illogical quite apart from being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. - Since the petitioner has already deposited the entire disputed tax liability as computed in terms of the VSV Act, the Form 5 issued during the pendency of these proceedings is accorded finality.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
