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...
Receipt of a new residential flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement was held not to be receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration within section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decision in Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO, found that the transaction was an exchange linked to redevelopment rather than a taxable transfer attracting deemed income. The addition made under section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted in full, and the appeal was allowed on merits.
Receipt of a new residential flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement was held not to be receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration within section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decision in Anil Dattaram Pitale v. ITO, found that the transaction was an exchange linked to redevelopment rather than a taxable transfer attracting deemed income. The addition made under section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted in full, and the appeal was allowed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.