Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The dominant issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction under s.55A (as applicable to AY 2011-12) to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining fair market value for capital gains computation. The Tribunal held that s.55A can be invoked only when the AO forms a reasoned opinion that the assessee's claimed fair market value/cost of acquisition requires substitution based on the prescribed statutory parameters; a mere perception that the declared consideration was lower by more than 25% is not a permissible basis. Since the Act does not authorize disturbing sale consideration through s.55A on that ground, the reference was invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction under s.55A (as applicable to AY 2011-12) to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining fair market value for capital gains computation. The Tribunal held that s.55A can be invoked only when the AO forms a reasoned opinion that the assessee's claimed fair market value/cost of acquisition requires substitution based on the prescribed statutory parameters; a mere perception that the declared consideration was lower by more than 25% is not a permissible basis. Since the Act does not authorize disturbing sale consideration through s.55A on that ground, the reference was invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
