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...
ITAT ruled against penalty under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS regarding cash transactions in property transfer. The Tribunal held that while Section 269SS applies broadly to property transfers beyond simple buy-sell transactions, it targets actual recipients of funds, not intermediaries. The appellant, acting as a broker, merely facilitated payments between principals and wasn't the true recipient. Additionally, ITAT found reasonable cause under Section 273B, noting the relevant amendment to Section 269SS occurred after the transaction date. The appellant's limited education and role as middleman demonstrated absence of malafide intent. The Tribunal directed deletion of penalty, allowing the appeal.
ITAT ruled against penalty under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS regarding cash transactions in property transfer. The Tribunal held that while Section 269SS applies broadly to property transfers beyond simple buy-sell transactions, it targets actual recipients of funds, not intermediaries. The appellant, acting as a broker, merely facilitated payments between principals and wasn't the true recipient. Additionally, ITAT found reasonable cause under Section 273B, noting the relevant amendment to Section 269SS occurred after the transaction date. The appellant's limited education and role as middleman demonstrated absence of malafide intent. The Tribunal directed deletion of penalty, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
