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...
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe or reason to suspect - The ITAT examined the "reasons recorded" by the AO for reopening the assessment. It noted that the AO relied on the information provided by the SEBI order, which alleged manipulative trading practices by certain entities, including the director of the assessee company. However, the court observed that the name of the assessee company itself was not listed among the entities restrained by SEBI. - The Tribunal emphasized that for the reopening of an assessment, the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income has escaped assessment, not merely "reasons to suspect." It found that the information provided by the SEBI order could only trigger "reasons to suspect" and did not meet the legal requirement for reopening.
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe or reason to suspect - The ITAT examined the "reasons recorded" by the AO for reopening the assessment. It noted that the AO relied on the information provided by the SEBI order, which alleged manipulative trading practices by certain entities, including the director of the assessee company. However, the court observed that the name of the assessee company itself was not listed among the entities restrained by SEBI. - The Tribunal emphasized that for the reopening of an assessment, the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income has escaped assessment, not merely "reasons to suspect." It found that the information provided by the SEBI order could only trigger "reasons to suspect" and did not meet the legal requirement for reopening.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
