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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
ITAT held that the search assessment regime under section 153C is triggered by initiation of search in the case of the searched person, not by the later notice to the other person; because the search and handover of seized material occurred before 01/04/2021, the pre-amended law applied and the notice was valid. On merits, the addition based solely on seized pen drive data and Excel printouts failed because the electronic record was inadmissible for lack of valid section 65B compliance and no independent corroboration existed. The separate addition based on an unsigned third-party voucher was also deleted for want of supporting evidence and for internal inconsistency in the assessment order.
ITAT held that the search assessment regime under section 153C is triggered by initiation of search in the case of the searched person, not by the later notice to the other person; because the search and handover of seized material occurred before 01/04/2021, the pre-amended law applied and the notice was valid. On merits, the addition based solely on seized pen drive data and Excel printouts failed because the electronic record was inadmissible for lack of valid section 65B compliance and no independent corroboration existed. The separate addition based on an unsigned third-party voucher was also deleted for want of supporting evidence and for internal inconsistency in the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
