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...
Rule 46A permits additional evidence before the first appellate authority only in the specified circumstances, and the permission must be supported by a written, reasoned order; the Assessing Officer must also be given a mandatory opportunity to examine and rebut that evidence in compliance with audi alteram partem. Here, no reasons were recorded for admitting the additional evidence and no material showed that the Assessing Officer was afforded any real opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal therefore erred in sustaining the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order on admission of additional evidence and, if admitted, an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut it.
Rule 46A permits additional evidence before the first appellate authority only in the specified circumstances, and the permission must be supported by a written, reasoned order; the Assessing Officer must also be given a mandatory opportunity to examine and rebut that evidence in compliance with audi alteram partem. Here, no reasons were recorded for admitting the additional evidence and no material showed that the Assessing Officer was afforded any real opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal therefore erred in sustaining the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order on admission of additional evidence and, if admitted, an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.