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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's plea towards non-applicability of Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was devoid of rationale. The Tribunal affirmed the existence of undisclosed income discovered during the search, based on cogent evidence of unexplained liabilities and unrecorded expenditures, which met the definition of 'undisclosed income' u/s 271AAB. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention regarding the non-existence of undisclosed income, stating that the assessee's conduct accepted the existence of undisclosed income. Regarding the quantum of penalty, the Tribunal observed that while the Assessing Officer imposed a 30% penalty under clause (c) of Section 271AAB(1), there appears to be a legislative aberration wherein an assessee admitting undisclosed income but failing to specify the manner of deriving it faces a higher penalty compared to an assessee who does not make any admission during the search.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's plea towards non-applicability of Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was devoid of rationale. The Tribunal affirmed the existence of undisclosed income discovered during the search, based on cogent evidence of unexplained liabilities and unrecorded expenditures, which met the definition of 'undisclosed income' u/s 271AAB. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention regarding the non-existence of undisclosed income, stating that the assessee's conduct accepted the existence of undisclosed income. Regarding the quantum of penalty, the Tribunal observed that while the Assessing Officer imposed a 30% penalty under clause (c) of Section 271AAB(1), there appears to be a legislative aberration wherein an assessee admitting undisclosed income but failing to specify the manner of deriving it faces a higher penalty compared to an assessee who does not make any admission during the search.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
