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 quashed additions made under section 153A for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 due to absence of incriminating material found during search proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that in unabated assessments, additions require supporting incriminating evidence discovered during search. Additionally, the approval granted under section 153D was deemed invalid as Additional CIT failed to demonstrate proper application of mind, merely providing symbolic approval without substantive review. The approval memo revealed delegation of statutory duty to subordinate AO, contrary to legal requirements. Following Abhisar Buildwell precedent, ITAT invalidated the assessment orders, holding them legally unsustainable due to procedural defects in both search-based additions and supervisory approval process.
ITAT quashed additions made under section 153A for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 due to absence of incriminating material found during search proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that in unabated assessments, additions require supporting incriminating evidence discovered during search. Additionally, the approval granted under section 153D was deemed invalid as Additional CIT failed to demonstrate proper application of mind, merely providing symbolic approval without substantive review. The approval memo revealed delegation of statutory duty to subordinate AO, contrary to legal requirements. Following Abhisar Buildwell precedent, ITAT invalidated the assessment orders, holding them legally unsustainable due to procedural defects in both search-based additions and supervisory approval process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.