Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
The ITAT held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
The ITAT held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.