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...
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing such additions. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 133(6) to verify the cash advances received from customers, with 69% of the notices duly served. While some parties confirmed the advances, the AO relied on a few negative replies to reject the entire amount as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant details, supported by audited books of accounts, invoices for purchases and sales. The sales were accepted, and the source of funds for those sales cannot be treated as unexplained u/s 68 when the details were furnished. Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that once the assessee supports the contention with evidence, the department cannot unreasonably reject the explanation without contrary evidence. The fact that notices were issued and parties confirmed the advances is prima facie evidence supporting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the cash advances received from customers before the stock receipts, where identity and sales were not disputed, cannot be added as unexplained money when all details were provided. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing such additions. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices u/s 133(6) to verify the cash advances received from customers, with 69% of the notices duly served. While some parties confirmed the advances, the AO relied on a few negative replies to reject the entire amount as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant details, supported by audited books of accounts, invoices for purchases and sales. The sales were accepted, and the source of funds for those sales cannot be treated as unexplained u/s 68 when the details were furnished. Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal ruled that once the assessee supports the contention with evidence, the department cannot unreasonably reject the explanation without contrary evidence. The fact that notices were issued and parties confirmed the advances is prima facie evidence supporting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the cash advances received from customers before the stock receipts, where identity and sales were not disputed, cannot be added as unexplained money when all details were provided. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
