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 Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the following issues: 1. Transfer Pricing adjustment on Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure was rejected in the absence of evidence establishing an arrangement or concerted action between the Indian entity and its Associated Enterprise. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as there was no exempt income earned in the concerned Assessment Years. 3. Disallowance of brand building expenditure u/s 37 was not justified. As per Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the assessee, being a licensee, was entitled to claim such expenditure as business expenditure, although it may have enhanced the brand of the overseas owner. 4. Disallowance based on seized material pertaining to preceding years was not merited in the absence of incriminating material for the concerned Assessment Years, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sinhgad Technical Education Society.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the following issues: 1. Transfer Pricing adjustment on Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure was rejected in the absence of evidence establishing an arrangement or concerted action between the Indian entity and its Associated Enterprise. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A was not warranted as there was no exempt income earned in the concerned Assessment Years. 3. Disallowance of brand building expenditure u/s 37 was not justified. As per Section 48 of the Trade Marks Act, the assessee, being a licensee, was entitled to claim such expenditure as business expenditure, although it may have enhanced the brand of the overseas owner. 4. Disallowance based on seized material pertaining to preceding years was not merited in the absence of incriminating material for the concerned Assessment Years, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sinhgad Technical Education Society.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
