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...
LTCG OR STCG - Capital gain on sale of equity shares - period of holding of shares - There exists a clause for condition precedent to the sale which has to be fulfilled by both the vendor and the purchaser - The Appellate Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of the "date of transfer" of shares. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bharti Gupta Ramola vs. CIT and similar Tribunal decisions, which supported the assessee's contention that the transfer date should be recognized as the date when all substantive conditions of the share transfer agreement were fulfilled. The Tribunal concluded that the shares were held for more than 12 months and therefore qualified for LTCG treatment.
LTCG OR STCG - Capital gain on sale of equity shares - period of holding of shares - There exists a clause for condition precedent to the sale which has to be fulfilled by both the vendor and the purchaser - The Appellate Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of the "date of transfer" of shares. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bharti Gupta Ramola vs. CIT and similar Tribunal decisions, which supported the assessee's contention that the transfer date should be recognized as the date when all substantive conditions of the share transfer agreement were fulfilled. The Tribunal concluded that the shares were held for more than 12 months and therefore qualified for LTCG treatment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
