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...
Section 194-IA did not require aggregation of consideration attributable to multiple co-owners for the year in question, and the Finance Act, 2024 amendment was prospective and inapplicable. Because the amount relatable to each co-owner was below the statutory threshold, the purchaser had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194-IA. As no TDS default survived, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) was also unsustainable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench rulings on the same issue and deleted the demand and interest.
Section 194-IA did not require aggregation of consideration attributable to multiple co-owners for the year in question, and the Finance Act, 2024 amendment was prospective and inapplicable. Because the amount relatable to each co-owner was below the statutory threshold, the purchaser had no obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194-IA. As no TDS default survived, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) was also unsustainable. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench rulings on the same issue and deleted the demand and interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
