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...
Jurisdictional issue regarding notice u/s 143(2) was addressed, with ITAT holding that the initial notice by ACIT, Circle-5(1), Delhi was within time, and subsequent transfer to jurisdictional AO did not invalidate proceedings. Regarding addition u/ss 68/69C, ITAT held CIT(A) erred in making addition u/s 69C without issuing show cause notice as mandated u/s 251. Books of account were accepted by AO, who did not reject them or make efforts to verify sundry creditors. Additions u/s 68 cannot be made when sales, purchases, and gross profit were disclosed and accepted. CIT(A)'s addition u/s 69C on grounds of non-banking channel purchases was incorrect when sales were accepted and gross profit rate increased. ITAT deleted CIT(A)'s addition u/s 69C, allowing assessee's appeal.
Jurisdictional issue regarding notice u/s 143(2) was addressed, with ITAT holding that the initial notice by ACIT, Circle-5(1), Delhi was within time, and subsequent transfer to jurisdictional AO did not invalidate proceedings. Regarding addition u/ss 68/69C, ITAT held CIT(A) erred in making addition u/s 69C without issuing show cause notice as mandated u/s 251. Books of account were accepted by AO, who did not reject them or make efforts to verify sundry creditors. Additions u/s 68 cannot be made when sales, purchases, and gross profit were disclosed and accepted. CIT(A)'s addition u/s 69C on grounds of non-banking channel purchases was incorrect when sales were accepted and gross profit rate increased. ITAT deleted CIT(A)'s addition u/s 69C, allowing assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
