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 was quashed because the recorded reasons suffered from fundamental defects: no proper approval in the prescribed form, absence of signature on sanction, and material factual errors in the basis for reopening. The assessing officer's later attempt to substitute fresh reasons was not permitted under section 147, and the alternative reasons still rested on suspicion, third-party information about the assessee's husband, and no independent tangible material showing escapement in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held this amounted only to a reason to suspect, not a valid reason to believe. Cross-objections were also rejected as time-barred, since they were filed 27 days late without any condonation request.
Reassessment was quashed because the recorded reasons suffered from fundamental defects: no proper approval in the prescribed form, absence of signature on sanction, and material factual errors in the basis for reopening. The assessing officer's later attempt to substitute fresh reasons was not permitted under section 147, and the alternative reasons still rested on suspicion, third-party information about the assessee's husband, and no independent tangible material showing escapement in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held this amounted only to a reason to suspect, not a valid reason to believe. Cross-objections were also rejected as time-barred, since they were filed 27 days late without any condonation request.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.