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 once the provisions of Section 43(5) were amended to treat trade in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange as a non-speculative transaction, the loss from such derivative transactions would be treated as a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, allowing for its set-off against profits and gains from business. The Court ruled that Section 73, which deals with losses from speculation business, was not applicable in this case since the derivative transactions were not speculative in nature. Consequently, the disallowance of the set-off by the Assessing Officer was deemed illegal, and the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee was upheld.
The High Court held that once the provisions of Section 43(5) were amended to treat trade in derivatives carried out on a recognized stock exchange as a non-speculative transaction, the loss from such derivative transactions would be treated as a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, allowing for its set-off against profits and gains from business. The Court ruled that Section 73, which deals with losses from speculation business, was not applicable in this case since the derivative transactions were not speculative in nature. Consequently, the disallowance of the set-off by the Assessing Officer was deemed illegal, and the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
