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 u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - The High Court examined the submissions and found that the notice for reopening the assessment lacked jurisdiction. It noted that the reasons for reopening were not based on any fresh material but were already considered during the regular assessment process. Additionally, the Court highlighted that reopening the assessment solely on the basis of audit party objections was invalid. Moreover, the Court agreed with the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of MAT provisions, stating that even if there were additions to income under normal provisions, it would not impact the MAT computation significantly. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no escapement of income under normal provisions.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - The High Court examined the submissions and found that the notice for reopening the assessment lacked jurisdiction. It noted that the reasons for reopening were not based on any fresh material but were already considered during the regular assessment process. Additionally, the Court highlighted that reopening the assessment solely on the basis of audit party objections was invalid. Moreover, the Court agreed with the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of MAT provisions, stating that even if there were additions to income under normal provisions, it would not impact the MAT computation significantly. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no escapement of income under normal provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
