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...
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was not justified because the AO had made adequate enquiry on cash sales, cash deposits, opening stock and purchases, and the assessee had furnished replies and records during assessment. The Tribunal found no lack of enquiry and held that the Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different view on the same material. Applying the principle that section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue, and that revision is unavailable where two plausible views exist, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders and allowed all three appeals.
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was not justified because the AO had made adequate enquiry on cash sales, cash deposits, opening stock and purchases, and the assessee had furnished replies and records during assessment. The Tribunal found no lack of enquiry and held that the Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different view on the same material. Applying the principle that section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue, and that revision is unavailable where two plausible views exist, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders and allowed all three appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
