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...
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
