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...
Cancellation of allotment of land on the basis of an alleged false affidavit - Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property - the petitioner argued that the Defence Colony property, previously owned by him, was absorbed into the HUF before the acquisition of his land in Yakootpur, rendering him eligible for an alternate plot - The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the property being in the HUF's name exempted him from disclosure, underscoring that an HUF and its members hold collective ownership of its properties. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's failure to disclose his interest in the Defence Colony property, irrespective of its HUF status, disqualified him from the allotment under the scheme.
Cancellation of allotment of land on the basis of an alleged false affidavit - Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property - the petitioner argued that the Defence Colony property, previously owned by him, was absorbed into the HUF before the acquisition of his land in Yakootpur, rendering him eligible for an alternate plot - The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the property being in the HUF's name exempted him from disclosure, underscoring that an HUF and its members hold collective ownership of its properties. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's failure to disclose his interest in the Defence Colony property, irrespective of its HUF status, disqualified him from the allotment under the scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
