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...
An unregistered joint development arrangement did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) because it had no legal efficacy for section 53-A, following Balbir Singh Maini. Section 2(47)(vi) also did not apply, as the transaction had not enabled enjoyment of the property as a purported owner and there was no movement of consideration or transfer, symbolically or constructively, before the relevant year-end. Applying B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Court held that the charging and computation provisions operate as an integrated code, and where no real profit or gain had arisen, sections 45 and 48 could not be invoked. No taxable transfer or accrued capital gain arose for the year.
An unregistered joint development arrangement did not constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) because it had no legal efficacy for section 53-A, following Balbir Singh Maini. Section 2(47)(vi) also did not apply, as the transaction had not enabled enjoyment of the property as a purported owner and there was no movement of consideration or transfer, symbolically or constructively, before the relevant year-end. Applying B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Court held that the charging and computation provisions operate as an integrated code, and where no real profit or gain had arisen, sections 45 and 48 could not be invoked. No taxable transfer or accrued capital gain arose for the year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
