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...
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
