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 developed a Mechanised Coal Handling System as per an agreement with KSPL, a Special Purpose Company of ISPL, which had an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The assessee obtained a certificate from the port authority certifying that the infrastructure facility developed for coal handling is part of the Kakinada deep water port's infrastructure. Although the second condition was relaxed by the CBDT Circular, the assessee provided a letter from KSPL stating that upon expiry of the concession period, the structures constructed by KSPL or its subcontractors shall become the property of the Government of Andhra Pradesh without any obligation to reimburse. The Mechanised Coal Handling Terminal Installation of the assessee is to be taken over by the Government of Andhra Pradesh at the end of the concession period. The permission obtained from the customs authority is deemed to be the approval granted by the competent authority of the Central Government, as per the Madras High Court decision in A.L. Logistics Private Limited, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Container Corporation of India Limited. The Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal for deduction u/s 80IA(4), as the assessee satisfied the prescribed conditions.
The assessee developed a Mechanised Coal Handling System as per an agreement with KSPL, a Special Purpose Company of ISPL, which had an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The assessee obtained a certificate from the port authority certifying that the infrastructure facility developed for coal handling is part of the Kakinada deep water port's infrastructure. Although the second condition was relaxed by the CBDT Circular, the assessee provided a letter from KSPL stating that upon expiry of the concession period, the structures constructed by KSPL or its subcontractors shall become the property of the Government of Andhra Pradesh without any obligation to reimburse. The Mechanised Coal Handling Terminal Installation of the assessee is to be taken over by the Government of Andhra Pradesh at the end of the concession period. The permission obtained from the customs authority is deemed to be the approval granted by the competent authority of the Central Government, as per the Madras High Court decision in A.L. Logistics Private Limited, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Container Corporation of India Limited. The Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's appeal for deduction u/s 80IA(4), as the assessee satisfied the prescribed conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
