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...
Validity of reopening of assessment - The High Court found that the Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the survey action on Jammu & Kashmir Bank, conducted after the original assessment order. The Court concluded that the notice was not issued due to any fresh tangible material but rather on the basis of the same material already available during the original assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the discrepancies in remittance amounts were explained by the bank's practice of applying notional and actual rates during transaction processing. The High Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Validity of reopening of assessment - The High Court found that the Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the survey action on Jammu & Kashmir Bank, conducted after the original assessment order. The Court concluded that the notice was not issued due to any fresh tangible material but rather on the basis of the same material already available during the original assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the discrepancies in remittance amounts were explained by the bank's practice of applying notional and actual rates during transaction processing. The High Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
