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 appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, and the goods were received from parties other than those from whom they were shown to have been purchased. The appellant deposited the input tax credit availed on the invoices from two entities, indicating that the goods were not received from those entities. The appellant inflated the expenditure by showing higher purchase prices through fictitious invoices from bogus suppliers. Since no sale can occur without purchase, and the appellant indulged in bogus purchases, a percentage of the bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculations regarding the percentage of bogus purchases and/or gross profit, after providing an opportunity to the appellant to produce relevant and admissible material, in accordance with the law.
The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase transactions, and the goods were received from parties other than those from whom they were shown to have been purchased. The appellant deposited the input tax credit availed on the invoices from two entities, indicating that the goods were not received from those entities. The appellant inflated the expenditure by showing higher purchase prices through fictitious invoices from bogus suppliers. Since no sale can occur without purchase, and the appellant indulged in bogus purchases, a percentage of the bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculations regarding the percentage of bogus purchases and/or gross profit, after providing an opportunity to the appellant to produce relevant and admissible material, in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
