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...
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
