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...
Assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) OR 153C - The Tribunal held that the assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) for A.Y. 2012-13, based on the satisfaction recorded on 18.11.2013 (A.Y. 2014-15), should have been conducted u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stating that the satisfaction note must explicitly indicate that the seized documents belong to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessments made were outside the scope of Section 153C, and hence, the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) was void ab initio.
Assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) OR 153C - The Tribunal held that the assessment made u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) for A.Y. 2012-13, based on the satisfaction recorded on 18.11.2013 (A.Y. 2014-15), should have been conducted u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stating that the satisfaction note must explicitly indicate that the seized documents belong to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessments made were outside the scope of Section 153C, and hence, the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 142(1) was void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
