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...
HC held that the expenditure incurred by the appellant to clear title of a disputed property constitutes a cost directly connected with the asset transfer under Section 48. The payment was deemed 'wholly and exclusively' incurred in connection with the property transfer, as the title was initially clouded and litigation existed between original vendors and their sisters. The court found that without such payment, the property transfer could not have been executed, effectively treating the amount as integral to the sale consideration. The expenditure was therefore allowable as part of the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains computation, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee.
HC held that the expenditure incurred by the appellant to clear title of a disputed property constitutes a cost directly connected with the asset transfer under Section 48. The payment was deemed 'wholly and exclusively' incurred in connection with the property transfer, as the title was initially clouded and litigation existed between original vendors and their sisters. The court found that without such payment, the property transfer could not have been executed, effectively treating the amount as integral to the sale consideration. The expenditure was therefore allowable as part of the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains computation, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
