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...
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
