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...
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
