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 of the matter revolves around the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the addition made u/s 68 treating the share application received as a non-genuine transaction and accommodation entry. The key points are: The reopening was initiated based on the incriminating material found during a search operation at the premises of a third party, indicating that the assessee had obtained an entry from an entry operator. The Assessing Officer heavily relied on the report of the Investigation Wing without independently verifying the facts. The assessee contended that the reopening u/s 147 was unjustified as the incriminating material was recovered during a search, and the proper course should have been proceedings u/s 153C. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 when the incriminating material was found during a search at a third party's premises. The CIT(A) failed to address the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the legality of reopening the assessment.
The crux of the matter revolves around the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the addition made u/s 68 treating the share application received as a non-genuine transaction and accommodation entry. The key points are: The reopening was initiated based on the incriminating material found during a search operation at the premises of a third party, indicating that the assessee had obtained an entry from an entry operator. The Assessing Officer heavily relied on the report of the Investigation Wing without independently verifying the facts. The assessee contended that the reopening u/s 147 was unjustified as the incriminating material was recovered during a search, and the proper course should have been proceedings u/s 153C. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 when the incriminating material was found during a search at a third party's premises. The CIT(A) failed to address the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the legality of reopening the assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
