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...
Reassessment for AY 2017-18 was held within limitation because the earlier notice issued on 29.04.2021 was treated as a deemed notice under section 148A(b) in light of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court held that the saving of defences under section 149 did not help the assessee, as the notice remained issuable under the old regime up to 31.03.2024 where escaped income crossed the applicable threshold. It further held that alleged escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs and represented as immovable property attracted the extended ten-year period. The challenge to the order under section 148A(d), the consequential notice under section 148, and the assessment order on limitation grounds was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Reassessment for AY 2017-18 was held within limitation because the earlier notice issued on 29.04.2021 was treated as a deemed notice under section 148A(b) in light of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court held that the saving of defences under section 149 did not help the assessee, as the notice remained issuable under the old regime up to 31.03.2024 where escaped income crossed the applicable threshold. It further held that alleged escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs and represented as immovable property attracted the extended ten-year period. The challenge to the order under section 148A(d), the consequential notice under section 148, and the assessment order on limitation grounds was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
