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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the assessee company. The assessee had furnished all relevant documents and evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money received, including PAN details, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Audit Reports, Balance Sheets, Bank statements, share application forms, Board Resolutions, and confirmations from the investor companies. The transactions were through proper banking channels and reflected in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the share capital as unexplained cash credits, solely based on statements recorded in some other case, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee. The ITAT held that the AO had denied natural justice by not granting an opportunity for cross-examination and had made the addition without assigning valid reasons or bringing any contrary evidence on record to negate the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that the impugned addition was unjustified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the assessee company. The assessee had furnished all relevant documents and evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money received, including PAN details, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Audit Reports, Balance Sheets, Bank statements, share application forms, Board Resolutions, and confirmations from the investor companies. The transactions were through proper banking channels and reflected in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the share capital as unexplained cash credits, solely based on statements recorded in some other case, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee. The ITAT held that the AO had denied natural justice by not granting an opportunity for cross-examination and had made the addition without assigning valid reasons or bringing any contrary evidence on record to negate the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that the impugned addition was unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
