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...
Section 153C was upheld where the search warrant named only the searched persons, and the assessee's residence was covered in the course of that search, so the objection that assessment had to be framed under section 153A failed. Commission income from alleged hawala transactions was estimated at 0.3% of turnover because no evidence showed actual receipt and the higher rate was excessive. Cash found during search remained unexplained because the assessee produced no documentary proof to rebut the presumption arising from possession. A seized third-party voucher and loose papers were insufficient without independent corroboration, while the jewellery addition was deleted in light of customary family holdings and prior disclosures.
Section 153C was upheld where the search warrant named only the searched persons, and the assessee's residence was covered in the course of that search, so the objection that assessment had to be framed under section 153A failed. Commission income from alleged hawala transactions was estimated at 0.3% of turnover because no evidence showed actual receipt and the higher rate was excessive. Cash found during search remained unexplained because the assessee produced no documentary proof to rebut the presumption arising from possession. A seized third-party voucher and loose papers were insufficient without independent corroboration, while the jewellery addition was deleted in light of customary family holdings and prior disclosures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.