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...
Addition u/s 69 - addition based on the estimation of the cost of acquisition of the property - The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on statements obtained during the survey proceedings, particularly regarding the payment of on-money for the property purchase. However, the Tribunal emphasized that such statements, which were later retracted, could not constitute valid evidence for making additions to the appellant's income. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not provided any supporting material apart from these statements to justify the addition. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the AO's decision to estimate the property acquisition cost at a higher value lacked sufficient basis and was not supported by credible evidence.
Addition u/s 69 - addition based on the estimation of the cost of acquisition of the property - The ITAT observed that the AO had relied heavily on statements obtained during the survey proceedings, particularly regarding the payment of on-money for the property purchase. However, the Tribunal emphasized that such statements, which were later retracted, could not constitute valid evidence for making additions to the appellant's income. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not provided any supporting material apart from these statements to justify the addition. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the AO's decision to estimate the property acquisition cost at a higher value lacked sufficient basis and was not supported by credible evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
