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 - reason to believe - onus to prove - The High court noted that reassessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is permissible only if there is a failure by the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. - The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts related to the waiver of loans in the original assessment proceedings. It was emphasized that the production of account books or other evidence does not necessarily amount to full disclosure as required by law. - As such, the reassessment was deemed to be based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening an assessment under the relevant sections of the Act.
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe - onus to prove - The High court noted that reassessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is permissible only if there is a failure by the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. - The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts related to the waiver of loans in the original assessment proceedings. It was emphasized that the production of account books or other evidence does not necessarily amount to full disclosure as required by law. - As such, the reassessment was deemed to be based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening an assessment under the relevant sections of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
