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 declared purchases from parties issuing bogus purchase vouchers without actual transactions, merely laundering unaccounted money to claim deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer treated 25% of unverifiable purchases as income from other sources, alleging inflation of export profits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The ITAT held that rejection of books u/s 145(3) requires specific conditions, which were not satisfied. The AO did not follow the proper procedure or point out defects in accounts. The ITAT relied on judicial precedents to conclude that no addition can be made if the declared gross profit rate is higher than the rate prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court in such cases. The assessee's gross profit rate was found reasonable based on comparable cases and the partner's statement recorded during the search. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's ground and deleted the addition of 25% of unverifiable purchases.
The assessee declared purchases from parties issuing bogus purchase vouchers without actual transactions, merely laundering unaccounted money to claim deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer treated 25% of unverifiable purchases as income from other sources, alleging inflation of export profits. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The ITAT held that rejection of books u/s 145(3) requires specific conditions, which were not satisfied. The AO did not follow the proper procedure or point out defects in accounts. The ITAT relied on judicial precedents to conclude that no addition can be made if the declared gross profit rate is higher than the rate prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court in such cases. The assessee's gross profit rate was found reasonable based on comparable cases and the partner's statement recorded during the search. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's ground and deleted the addition of 25% of unverifiable purchases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.