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...
Uncorroborated retracted search statements, third-party tally data and WhatsApp material were found insufficient to sustain alleged commission additions in the individual assessee's case, because there was no cash trail, bank entry or independent documentary proof of receipt; the additions were deleted. Reassessment notices issued beyond three years were held invalid where section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied, as the alleged escapement did not meet the Rs. 50 lakh threshold; the reassessment proceedings were quashed. In the company's case, alleged cash-sales and commission-expenditure issues were remanded for fresh adjudication because factual verification and 65B compliance were required.
Uncorroborated retracted search statements, third-party tally data and WhatsApp material were found insufficient to sustain alleged commission additions in the individual assessee's case, because there was no cash trail, bank entry or independent documentary proof of receipt; the additions were deleted. Reassessment notices issued beyond three years were held invalid where section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied, as the alleged escapement did not meet the Rs. 50 lakh threshold; the reassessment proceedings were quashed. In the company's case, alleged cash-sales and commission-expenditure issues were remanded for fresh adjudication because factual verification and 65B compliance were required.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
