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...
The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 does not allow an amalgamated company to treat the amalgamating company's losses as its own for set-off. Section 12 permits carry forward only by the person who actually sustained the loss, and Section 54 on succession to business deals with assessment and recovery of dues, not transfer of loss relief to the successor. The scheme of amalgamation could not create a tax benefit absent in the statute. In any event, the claimed losses for the relevant year were beyond the eight-year carry-forward limit under Section 12, so the set-off was barred. The appeals were dismissed.
The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 does not allow an amalgamated company to treat the amalgamating company's losses as its own for set-off. Section 12 permits carry forward only by the person who actually sustained the loss, and Section 54 on succession to business deals with assessment and recovery of dues, not transfer of loss relief to the successor. The scheme of amalgamation could not create a tax benefit absent in the statute. In any event, the claimed losses for the relevant year were beyond the eight-year carry-forward limit under Section 12, so the set-off was barred. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
