Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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.