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...
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) for an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31 by a local authority. The scope of the definition of 'built-up area' was examined. The DVO's report showing violation related to two row houses having an area more than 1500 sq.ft. was not considered. It was held that for projects approved prior to April 1, 2005, the assessee could legitimately claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the plans approved by the Planning Authority, as the concept of built-up area, including inner measurement, projections, balconies, and wall thickness, but excluding common areas, was not applicable. Applying such parameters retrospectively would lead to absurd results. The expression 'built-up area' introduced from April 1, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in excluding the balcony area for the period up to April 1, 2005. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) for an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31 by a local authority. The scope of the definition of 'built-up area' was examined. The DVO's report showing violation related to two row houses having an area more than 1500 sq.ft. was not considered. It was held that for projects approved prior to April 1, 2005, the assessee could legitimately claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the plans approved by the Planning Authority, as the concept of built-up area, including inner measurement, projections, balconies, and wall thickness, but excluding common areas, was not applicable. Applying such parameters retrospectively would lead to absurd results. The expression 'built-up area' introduced from April 1, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in excluding the balcony area for the period up to April 1, 2005. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
