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 ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, a doctor residing in the United Kingdom. The unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's Indian bank account during the demonetization period were claimed to be gifts from the assessee's family members, who are doctors with substantial income in India. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash gifts could not be deposited at once due to difficulties during demonetization. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries u/s 133(6)/131(1) to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donors, despite the assessee furnishing gift certificates. The onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, who made assumptions without completing the inquiry process. Considering the family's status and income, the Tribunal found the explanation for cash gifts over three years justified. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 115BBE, as the assessee was aware of the nature of additions through the show cause notice, despite the Assessing Officer not mentioning the specific section.
The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, a doctor residing in the United Kingdom. The unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's Indian bank account during the demonetization period were claimed to be gifts from the assessee's family members, who are doctors with substantial income in India. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the cash gifts could not be deposited at once due to difficulties during demonetization. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries u/s 133(6)/131(1) to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donors, despite the assessee furnishing gift certificates. The onus shifted to the Assessing Officer, who made assumptions without completing the inquiry process. Considering the family's status and income, the Tribunal found the explanation for cash gifts over three years justified. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 115BBE, as the assessee was aware of the nature of additions through the show cause notice, despite the Assessing Officer not mentioning the specific section.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
