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...
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was done solely for the purpose of verification of the source of purchase of property, which is not a valid reason as per settled judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court in Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India has categorically held that reassessment u/s 147 cannot be done solely for verification purposes. Since reopening was done only for verification of source of investment in property, as evident from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, relying on the judicial propositions that reopening cannot be done for verification, the reopening of assessment is held invalid and unjustified, and consequently, the assessment order does not survive. The appeal is allowed on this ground.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was done solely for the purpose of verification of the source of purchase of property, which is not a valid reason as per settled judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court in Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India has categorically held that reassessment u/s 147 cannot be done solely for verification purposes. Since reopening was done only for verification of source of investment in property, as evident from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, relying on the judicial propositions that reopening cannot be done for verification, the reopening of assessment is held invalid and unjustified, and consequently, the assessment order does not survive. The appeal is allowed on this ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
