Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
A search statement under section 132(4) was held insufficient by itself to sustain an addition under section 69A where it was promptly retracted and no corroborative incriminating material was found. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the circumstances of the statement, while the Assessing Officer produced no seized jewellery, cash deposits, bank material, documentary trail, or other independent evidence to support the alleged receipt or its application. Because the addition rested only on the retracted statement and the statutory burden was not discharged by independent corroboration, the appellate deletion of the addition was upheld.
A search statement under section 132(4) was held insufficient by itself to sustain an addition under section 69A where it was promptly retracted and no corroborative incriminating material was found. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the circumstances of the statement, while the Assessing Officer produced no seized jewellery, cash deposits, bank material, documentary trail, or other independent evidence to support the alleged receipt or its application. Because the addition rested only on the retracted statement and the statutory burden was not discharged by independent corroboration, the appellate deletion of the addition was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
