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...
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held inapplicable where an assessee disclosed the Hong Kong branch income and claimed treaty relief on the basis of a plausible legal interpretation. The disallowance resulted from a pure error of law because the India-China DTAA did not extend to Hong Kong at the relevant time, but the Department failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that Dharmendra Textile Processors did not make penalty automatic on every disallowance; the statutory preconditions for penalty must still be satisfied. The penalty deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held inapplicable where an assessee disclosed the Hong Kong branch income and claimed treaty relief on the basis of a plausible legal interpretation. The disallowance resulted from a pure error of law because the India-China DTAA did not extend to Hong Kong at the relevant time, but the Department failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court held that Dharmendra Textile Processors did not make penalty automatic on every disallowance; the statutory preconditions for penalty must still be satisfied. The penalty deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
