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 HC declined to entertain the petition challenging the Tribunal's decision under Section 254(2) regarding TP adjustment for guarantee fees paid to an Associated Enterprise. The Court noted that the Tribunal had decided Ground No.4 in favor of the Assessee based on a precedent from the Gujarat HC [2018] that confirmed a similar ruling for an earlier assessment year (2009-10). The Court determined it would be an academic exercise to evaluate the Tribunal's power to recall its order under Section 254(2) when the HC had already approved similar findings in the previous assessment year, thereby implicitly validating the Tribunal's conclusion rejecting the upward TP adjustment of guarantee fees.
The HC declined to entertain the petition challenging the Tribunal's decision under Section 254(2) regarding TP adjustment for guarantee fees paid to an Associated Enterprise. The Court noted that the Tribunal had decided Ground No.4 in favor of the Assessee based on a precedent from the Gujarat HC [2018] that confirmed a similar ruling for an earlier assessment year (2009-10). The Court determined it would be an academic exercise to evaluate the Tribunal's power to recall its order under Section 254(2) when the HC had already approved similar findings in the previous assessment year, thereby implicitly validating the Tribunal's conclusion rejecting the upward TP adjustment of guarantee fees.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
