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...
DCF share valuation could not be discarded and replaced with another fair market value without first identifying a specific defect or non-compliance in the assessee's prescribed valuation report, so the addition for excess share premium under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted. Protective assessment was confined to cases of doubt about the correct person chargeable to tax; where both additions were made in the same assessee's hands in the same year under different heads, that basis did not apply, so the section 68 protective addition was also deleted. The appeal was allowed.
DCF share valuation could not be discarded and replaced with another fair market value without first identifying a specific defect or non-compliance in the assessee's prescribed valuation report, so the addition for excess share premium under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted. Protective assessment was confined to cases of doubt about the correct person chargeable to tax; where both additions were made in the same assessee's hands in the same year under different heads, that basis did not apply, so the section 68 protective addition was also deleted. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.