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 statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are admissible evidence u/s 158BD read with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 131. In the present case, the husbands of the assessees made statements during search operations that the total investment in constructing the house property was Rs. 15 lakhs, though only Rs. 7 lakhs was accounted for. The assessees reiterated this fact on 03.05.1999. Such statements are presumed true unless the assessees plead that they were obtained forcibly, by coercion, or undue influence. The burden lies on the assessees to establish that the admission is incorrect or wrong. As the assessees failed to discharge this burden, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), deciding against the assessees.
The High Court held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are admissible evidence u/s 158BD read with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 131. In the present case, the husbands of the assessees made statements during search operations that the total investment in constructing the house property was Rs. 15 lakhs, though only Rs. 7 lakhs was accounted for. The assessees reiterated this fact on 03.05.1999. Such statements are presumed true unless the assessees plead that they were obtained forcibly, by coercion, or undue influence. The burden lies on the assessees to establish that the admission is incorrect or wrong. As the assessees failed to discharge this burden, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), deciding against the assessees.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
