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...
The ITAT found that the addition relating to alleged immovable property transactions was made without proper verification of the basic facts, particularly because the assessment record showed inconsistency in how the same properties were treated and the AO had shifted between possible taxability under section 56(2)(x) and section 50C. The Tribunal noted that no addition was ultimately made under section 56(2)(x), while the section 50C addition rested on an unverified factual foundation, and the assessee's cancellation claim was unsupported by the record. The matter was therefore restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh examination and re-adjudication on evidence and enquiry.
The ITAT found that the addition relating to alleged immovable property transactions was made without proper verification of the basic facts, particularly because the assessment record showed inconsistency in how the same properties were treated and the AO had shifted between possible taxability under section 56(2)(x) and section 50C. The Tribunal noted that no addition was ultimately made under section 56(2)(x), while the section 50C addition rested on an unverified factual foundation, and the assessee's cancellation claim was unsupported by the record. The matter was therefore restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh examination and re-adjudication on evidence and enquiry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
