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...
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the underlying quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases represented only an estimated profit element and not a definite, proved concealment. The ITAT deleted the penalty for Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the ground that estimated additions alone do not justify penalty. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appellate order sustaining penalty was set aside because the assessee's submissions had not been considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity and addressing the material placed on record.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the underlying quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases represented only an estimated profit element and not a definite, proved concealment. The ITAT deleted the penalty for Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the ground that estimated additions alone do not justify penalty. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appellate order sustaining penalty was set aside because the assessee's submissions had not been considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity and addressing the material placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.