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 56(2)(vii)(b) - transfer under gift deed - family settlement- The Assessee contended that the transfer of land through a gift deed was part of a family settlement/arrangement between the parties involved. They argued that various documents, including a family settlement arrangement and MOUs, supported their position. The Revenue, however, maintained that the transfer was without consideration and fell within the ambit of deemed income under the Act. - The ITAT concluded that the transaction should be understood in the context of the broader arrangement and not in isolation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deemed unjustified, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - transfer under gift deed - family settlement- The Assessee contended that the transfer of land through a gift deed was part of a family settlement/arrangement between the parties involved. They argued that various documents, including a family settlement arrangement and MOUs, supported their position. The Revenue, however, maintained that the transfer was without consideration and fell within the ambit of deemed income under the Act. - The ITAT concluded that the transaction should be understood in the context of the broader arrangement and not in isolation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deemed unjustified, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
