TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
A jurisdictional challenge to reassessment under section 147, raised for the first time in cross-objection on the footing that section 153C should have applied, was not entertained because it required fresh factual inquiry beyond the existing appellate record and no such challenge had been raised before the first appellate authority. The tribunal also upheld best judgment estimation of commission income from accommodation entries, holding that the appellate authority could not replace the Assessing Officer's estimate of 2% with 0.5% without identifying any evidentiary or legal infirmity in the original estimate. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed and the additions were restored.
A jurisdictional challenge to reassessment under section 147, raised for the first time in cross-objection on the footing that section 153C should have applied, was not entertained because it required fresh factual inquiry beyond the existing appellate record and no such challenge had been raised before the first appellate authority. The tribunal also upheld best judgment estimation of commission income from accommodation entries, holding that the appellate authority could not replace the Assessing Officer's estimate of 2% with 0.5% without identifying any evidentiary or legal infirmity in the original estimate. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed and the additions were restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.