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...
Revision u/s 263 - 56(2)(x)(c)(B) - FMV purchases exceeds the price of shares - The tribunal observed that, the option to adopt either NAV or DCF Method for valuing the shares has been given to an Assessee in the statute itself. When the A.O. has appreciated this option availed by the Assessee, his order cannot be construed as erroneous. - Further, it is observed that it is not a case wherein the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry rather it is the case wherein the AO has conducted an elaborate enquiry and adopted one of the two views which was plausible view. - Consequently, the ITAT following the decision of Supreme Court, quashed the revision order.
Revision u/s 263 - 56(2)(x)(c)(B) - FMV purchases exceeds the price of shares - The tribunal observed that, the option to adopt either NAV or DCF Method for valuing the shares has been given to an Assessee in the statute itself. When the A.O. has appreciated this option availed by the Assessee, his order cannot be construed as erroneous. - Further, it is observed that it is not a case wherein the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry rather it is the case wherein the AO has conducted an elaborate enquiry and adopted one of the two views which was plausible view. - Consequently, the ITAT following the decision of Supreme Court, quashed the revision order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
