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...
Mere use of borrowed funds or the volume of share transactions did not change the character of shareholdings into stock-in-trade where the assessee consistently treated listed shares as investments and held them for more than 12 months. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that intention, consistency in treatment, and the surrounding facts govern classification of share transaction income. As the Assessing Officer relied only on the alleged flow of borrowed funds and did not make an objective analysis of frequency, holding period, intention at purchase, or book treatment, the gains were correctly assessed as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and treated both long-term and short-term gains as capital gains, not business income.
Mere use of borrowed funds or the volume of share transactions did not change the character of shareholdings into stock-in-trade where the assessee consistently treated listed shares as investments and held them for more than 12 months. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that intention, consistency in treatment, and the surrounding facts govern classification of share transaction income. As the Assessing Officer relied only on the alleged flow of borrowed funds and did not make an objective analysis of frequency, holding period, intention at purchase, or book treatment, the gains were correctly assessed as capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) and treated both long-term and short-term gains as capital gains, not business income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
