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 Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) who conducted the assessment proceedings, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The reopening was based on incorrect information that the assessee had purchased goods from a Pvt. Ltd. company, whereas the facts revealed that the assessee had sold goods worth Rs. 85,69,197/- to same company. The Tribunal further held that the addition made u/s 68 was unjustified as the assessee had already offered the sales for taxation and had discharged its onus by producing overwhelming evidence of the sales recorded in the books of account. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) who conducted the assessment proceedings, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The reopening was based on incorrect information that the assessee had purchased goods from a Pvt. Ltd. company, whereas the facts revealed that the assessee had sold goods worth Rs. 85,69,197/- to same company. The Tribunal further held that the addition made u/s 68 was unjustified as the assessee had already offered the sales for taxation and had discharged its onus by producing overwhelming evidence of the sales recorded in the books of account. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
