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 High Court quashed the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and consequential notice u/s 148, holding that the interest income derived from Non-convertible Debentures floated by Genpact India Private Limited was appropriately offered to tax u/s 194LD. The Court observed a manifest variation between the initial reasons recorded for reassessment and the final order disposing of objections. Furthermore, even if the payment were assumed to be dividend, the liability to pay tax would be on the company declaring or paying the dividend, not the recipient. The Court also noted that issues emanating from the CIT(IT)'s order u/s 263 are pending adjudication in another appeal, which cannot sustain the reassessment proceedings impugned herein.
The High Court quashed the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and consequential notice u/s 148, holding that the interest income derived from Non-convertible Debentures floated by Genpact India Private Limited was appropriately offered to tax u/s 194LD. The Court observed a manifest variation between the initial reasons recorded for reassessment and the final order disposing of objections. Furthermore, even if the payment were assumed to be dividend, the liability to pay tax would be on the company declaring or paying the dividend, not the recipient. The Court also noted that issues emanating from the CIT(IT)'s order u/s 263 are pending adjudication in another appeal, which cannot sustain the reassessment proceedings impugned herein.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
