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...
After admitting an additional ground for deduction under section 32AC, the ITAT held that the appellate authority had to decide the claim on merits and could not refuse it merely because it was raised belatedly or on conduct-based objections already waived at admission. It further held that Goetz India Ltd. did not limit the appellate authority's power to entertain a fresh statutory claim supported by documents and capable of verification. However, because the remand report did not clearly confirm that the assets were new plant and machinery or that all statutory conditions were met, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
After admitting an additional ground for deduction under section 32AC, the ITAT held that the appellate authority had to decide the claim on merits and could not refuse it merely because it was raised belatedly or on conduct-based objections already waived at admission. It further held that Goetz India Ltd. did not limit the appellate authority's power to entertain a fresh statutory claim supported by documents and capable of verification. However, because the remand report did not clearly confirm that the assets were new plant and machinery or that all statutory conditions were met, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.