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...
Penalty u/s 271(c) was imposed on additions of 25% of non-verifiable purchases debited to the trading account. The addition was made on estimation of total turnover after rejecting the books of accounts. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various purchase parties, but all were returned by the postal authority, and the assessee did not produce the parties to confirm the same. The lower authorities observed that the revenue did not establish that the assessee had concealed or submitted inaccurate particulars of income to attract Section 271(1)(c). The addition was admittedly made on an estimate basis. The ratio of the judgment in Parasamal Babulal Jain and various ITAT pronouncements covered the assessee's case. Since the addition was made on an estimate basis, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it, deciding against the revenue.
Penalty u/s 271(c) was imposed on additions of 25% of non-verifiable purchases debited to the trading account. The addition was made on estimation of total turnover after rejecting the books of accounts. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various purchase parties, but all were returned by the postal authority, and the assessee did not produce the parties to confirm the same. The lower authorities observed that the revenue did not establish that the assessee had concealed or submitted inaccurate particulars of income to attract Section 271(1)(c). The addition was admittedly made on an estimate basis. The ratio of the judgment in Parasamal Babulal Jain and various ITAT pronouncements covered the assessee's case. Since the addition was made on an estimate basis, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it, deciding against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
