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 High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked sufficient material or evidence to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in respect of transactions involving shares of Cubical. The notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) failed to demonstrate that the AO possessed books of account, documents, or evidence revealing that the assessee's income from Cubical transactions, treated as capital gains, had escaped assessment. The mere allegation of bogus profits from Cubical shares and the tabular statement reflecting figures did not substantiate that the income was undisclosed or a camouflage. Without concrete evidence suggesting the Cubical transactions were bogus, the amount of Rs. 30,71,263/- could not be included as income escaping assessment. Excluding this amount, the remaining income from Gemstone share transactions fell short of the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked sufficient material or evidence to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in respect of transactions involving shares of Cubical. The notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) failed to demonstrate that the AO possessed books of account, documents, or evidence revealing that the assessee's income from Cubical transactions, treated as capital gains, had escaped assessment. The mere allegation of bogus profits from Cubical shares and the tabular statement reflecting figures did not substantiate that the income was undisclosed or a camouflage. Without concrete evidence suggesting the Cubical transactions were bogus, the amount of Rs. 30,71,263/- could not be included as income escaping assessment. Excluding this amount, the remaining income from Gemstone share transactions fell short of the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
