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 Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment solely based on the information from a survey conducted by the Sales Tax Department, without independently examining the allegations or ascertaining the status of proceedings under the Sales Tax statute. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the reopening, as the AO failed to apply their mind and did not inquire about the subsequent developments in the Sales Tax case, where the original assessment order had been set aside and the matter remitted for fresh assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening based on a 'prima facie' formation of opinion. The High Court held that the reasons recorded by the AO cannot be considered proper to form a belief of income escaping assessment, as the information received was not found well-founded, and the AO made no efforts to verify or apply their mind to the same. The provisions of Section 147 do not give unfettered powers to reopen assessments, and the AO is required to satisfy the preconditions, which were lacking in this case.
The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment solely based on the information from a survey conducted by the Sales Tax Department, without independently examining the allegations or ascertaining the status of proceedings under the Sales Tax statute. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the reopening, as the AO failed to apply their mind and did not inquire about the subsequent developments in the Sales Tax case, where the original assessment order had been set aside and the matter remitted for fresh assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the reopening based on a 'prima facie' formation of opinion. The High Court held that the reasons recorded by the AO cannot be considered proper to form a belief of income escaping assessment, as the information received was not found well-founded, and the AO made no efforts to verify or apply their mind to the same. The provisions of Section 147 do not give unfettered powers to reopen assessments, and the AO is required to satisfy the preconditions, which were lacking in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
