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...
Correct head of income - compensation received for vacating the flat - While the assessee argued for capital gain treatment, the Revenue contended it should be classified as income from other sources. However, the ITAT ruled that the compensation constituted a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, as it was received from the company out of its own income. The ITAT concluded that the amount was neither capital gain nor income from other sources but rather an application of income by the company. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Correct head of income - compensation received for vacating the flat - While the assessee argued for capital gain treatment, the Revenue contended it should be classified as income from other sources. However, the ITAT ruled that the compensation constituted a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, as it was received from the company out of its own income. The ITAT concluded that the amount was neither capital gain nor income from other sources but rather an application of income by the company. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
