Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Where reopening rested solely on incriminating material seized in a search on another person, the special search assessment mechanism under section 153C prevailed over general reassessment under sections 147/148, and the reassessment was held bad in law. In the absence of the searched person's Assessing Officer's satisfaction note and any independent post-search material, jurisdiction under sections 147/148 could not be assumed on third-party search material alone. The objection of borrowed satisfaction was rejected because the Assessing Officer had issued notice, sought an explanation under section 148A(b), and passed a reasoned order under section 148A(d), showing independent application of mind.
Where reopening rested solely on incriminating material seized in a search on another person, the special search assessment mechanism under section 153C prevailed over general reassessment under sections 147/148, and the reassessment was held bad in law. In the absence of the searched person's Assessing Officer's satisfaction note and any independent post-search material, jurisdiction under sections 147/148 could not be assumed on third-party search material alone. The objection of borrowed satisfaction was rejected because the Assessing Officer had issued notice, sought an explanation under section 148A(b), and passed a reasoned order under section 148A(d), showing independent application of mind.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.