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...
Primary issue was whether assets received under a scheme of demerger attracted deemed income u/s 56(2)(x) because the demerger allegedly violated Section 2(19AA) and the swap ratio/valuation contravened Rule 11UA. Tribunal held Section 2(19AA)(iv) mandates proportionate share allotment only, Rule 11UA cannot be read into Section 2(19AA), the registered valuer's computation was reasonable and the scheme complied with Section 2(19AA) read with Section 47(vi); consequence: addition u/s 56(2)(x) deleted. Separately, payment under an unregistered MOU was not a "specified agreement" attracting TDS u/s 194IC; consequence: no TDS liability. - ITAT
Primary issue was whether assets received under a scheme of demerger attracted deemed income u/s 56(2)(x) because the demerger allegedly violated Section 2(19AA) and the swap ratio/valuation contravened Rule 11UA. Tribunal held Section 2(19AA)(iv) mandates proportionate share allotment only, Rule 11UA cannot be read into Section 2(19AA), the registered valuer's computation was reasonable and the scheme complied with Section 2(19AA) read with Section 47(vi); consequence: addition u/s 56(2)(x) deleted. Separately, payment under an unregistered MOU was not a "specified agreement" attracting TDS u/s 194IC; consequence: no TDS liability. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.