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...
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
