Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.