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...
Additions on account of Bogus unsecured loans and bogus share capital money - Revenue argued that the unsecured loan from entities controlled by a hawala operator should be treated as accommodation entries and assessed as the assessee's own income. - The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. Despite the AO's reliance on statements from the hawala operator, the Tribunal noted that such statements were recorded without the assessee's opportunity for cross-examination. As the assessee had fulfilled the burden of proof u/s 68, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the unsecured loan. - Furthermore, it was found that the share application money was not received by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, as evidenced by the balance sheet. Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the decisions of the CIT(A).
Additions on account of Bogus unsecured loans and bogus share capital money - Revenue argued that the unsecured loan from entities controlled by a hawala operator should be treated as accommodation entries and assessed as the assessee's own income. - The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. Despite the AO's reliance on statements from the hawala operator, the Tribunal noted that such statements were recorded without the assessee's opportunity for cross-examination. As the assessee had fulfilled the burden of proof u/s 68, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the unsecured loan. - Furthermore, it was found that the share application money was not received by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, as evidenced by the balance sheet. Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the decisions of the CIT(A).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
