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 AT upheld the findings of benami transactions against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. It held that substantial cash deposits in a dummy bank account of a benamidar firm, with no genuine business activity and no supporting sale agreement or documented transaction, established that the appellant was the beneficial owner of the funds. The appellant's plea of ignorance, alleging that her husband operated the bank account, was rejected as legally untenable. The AT further held that subsequent reassessment or surrender of amounts as undisclosed income under s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not retrospectively nullify or regularize the earlier benami transactions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
The AT upheld the findings of benami transactions against the appellant and dismissed the appeal. It held that substantial cash deposits in a dummy bank account of a benamidar firm, with no genuine business activity and no supporting sale agreement or documented transaction, established that the appellant was the beneficial owner of the funds. The appellant's plea of ignorance, alleging that her husband operated the bank account, was rejected as legally untenable. The AT further held that subsequent reassessment or surrender of amounts as undisclosed income under s.148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not retrospectively nullify or regularize the earlier benami transactions under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
