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(1)(c) was imposed for disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees. The CIT(A) relied on Sharp Business System [2012 (11) TMI 324 - Delhi High Court], which is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 1154 - Delhi High Court] allowed depreciation on non-compete fees after considering Sharp Business System. Different High Courts have divergent views on allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees, and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Considering the contentious issue, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees. The CIT(A) relied on Sharp Business System [2012 (11) TMI 324 - Delhi High Court], which is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 1154 - Delhi High Court] allowed depreciation on non-compete fees after considering Sharp Business System. Different High Courts have divergent views on allowability of depreciation on non-compete fees, and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Considering the contentious issue, provisions of Section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.