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...
Revision under section 263 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Revision under section 263 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
