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...
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had incorrectly assumed facts while reopening the assessment u/s 147, leading to an erroneous belief of income escaping assessment. The assessee had already undergone scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), disclosed share application receipts, and provided relevant details accepted by the AO. Despite adverse information from the CIT(A), the AO failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry and relied on incorrect assumptions. Mere adverse information triggers 'reason to suspect' but not the 'reason to believe' required for reopening assessment. The AO did not record proper reasons after examining material. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was vitiated, held bad in law, and quashed by the ITAT, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had incorrectly assumed facts while reopening the assessment u/s 147, leading to an erroneous belief of income escaping assessment. The assessee had already undergone scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), disclosed share application receipts, and provided relevant details accepted by the AO. Despite adverse information from the CIT(A), the AO failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry and relied on incorrect assumptions. Mere adverse information triggers 'reason to suspect' but not the 'reason to believe' required for reopening assessment. The AO did not record proper reasons after examining material. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 was vitiated, held bad in law, and quashed by the ITAT, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
