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 assessee borrowed loans from financial institutions at an interest rate of 12.75% and advanced loans to group companies or relatives at 12% interest rate. The assessee restricted the claim of interest expense u/s 57 to 12%, being the interest earned. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revision u/s 263, disallowing the interest income, concluding the assessee failed to substantiate the nexus between the interest-bearing loans taken and advances made. The PCIT also held the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly added unexplained cash credits to income without considering the assessee's submissions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee disclosed rental income correctly. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the ITAT held the PCIT failed to demonstrate the AO's order was erroneous due to inadequate inquiry. The AO conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind. No prejudice was caused to the Revenue. The PCIT's order was unsustainable in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The assessee borrowed loans from financial institutions at an interest rate of 12.75% and advanced loans to group companies or relatives at 12% interest rate. The assessee restricted the claim of interest expense u/s 57 to 12%, being the interest earned. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revision u/s 263, disallowing the interest income, concluding the assessee failed to substantiate the nexus between the interest-bearing loans taken and advances made. The PCIT also held the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly added unexplained cash credits to income without considering the assessee's submissions. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed the assessee disclosed rental income correctly. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., the ITAT held the PCIT failed to demonstrate the AO's order was erroneous due to inadequate inquiry. The AO conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind. No prejudice was caused to the Revenue. The PCIT's order was unsustainable in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
