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...
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
