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 crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale of land. The Tribunal held that adopting a different valuation for determining cost of acquisition based on estimation cannot be the basis for imposing penalty. The capital gains were computed by the assessee based on estimated cost as on 1.4.1981, which the Assessing Officer disagreed with and adopted the fair market value mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.11.1980 without referring to the District Valuation Officer. This recomputation based on material furnished by the assessee cannot attract penalty. Mere difference in estimation of cost by the authorities does not prove concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer failed to establish willful negligence, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty cannot be levied for estimated additions unless the factum of concealment or inaccurate particulars is proved. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as not imposable.
The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale of land. The Tribunal held that adopting a different valuation for determining cost of acquisition based on estimation cannot be the basis for imposing penalty. The capital gains were computed by the assessee based on estimated cost as on 1.4.1981, which the Assessing Officer disagreed with and adopted the fair market value mentioned in the sale deed dated 17.11.1980 without referring to the District Valuation Officer. This recomputation based on material furnished by the assessee cannot attract penalty. Mere difference in estimation of cost by the authorities does not prove concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer failed to establish willful negligence, concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty cannot be levied for estimated additions unless the factum of concealment or inaccurate particulars is proved. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as not imposable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
