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...
Income under the head 'business and profession' would be earned by incurring relevant expenditure. While unjustified expenditure could be disallowed, there are limits to the documentation and evidence a normal business would maintain. The assessee meticulously maintained documents, deducted tax at source on payments to vendors executing turnkey projects. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the limits on evidence a business entity would have to justify expenditure. The assessee provided detailed documents justifying the expenditure incurred. Relying on judicial precedents, the burden of proof on the assessee regarding proving expenditure u/s 37(1) has limits and cannot be mainly disallowed on the grounds adopted by the Assessing Officer. Disallowance u/s 37(1) was deleted, decided in favor of the assessee.
Income under the head 'business and profession' would be earned by incurring relevant expenditure. While unjustified expenditure could be disallowed, there are limits to the documentation and evidence a normal business would maintain. The assessee meticulously maintained documents, deducted tax at source on payments to vendors executing turnkey projects. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the limits on evidence a business entity would have to justify expenditure. The assessee provided detailed documents justifying the expenditure incurred. Relying on judicial precedents, the burden of proof on the assessee regarding proving expenditure u/s 37(1) has limits and cannot be mainly disallowed on the grounds adopted by the Assessing Officer. Disallowance u/s 37(1) was deleted, decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
