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...
Assessment was held time-barred where clause (xii) of Explanation 1 to section 153 operated only as an exclusion of the period during which seized material was unavailable within the running limitation period, not as an enlargement of the total time for assessment; the order passed after the outer date was quashed. On merits, additions based on third-party seized cash entries were deleted because the material came from other entities, the witness retracted the earlier statement, and no independent corroboration connected the assessee to any cash receipt. Digital entries from a pen drive were inadmissible without a valid section 65B certificate, and presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee. Section 56(2)(x) failed because actual receipt without consideration was not proved.
Assessment was held time-barred where clause (xii) of Explanation 1 to section 153 operated only as an exclusion of the period during which seized material was unavailable within the running limitation period, not as an enlargement of the total time for assessment; the order passed after the outer date was quashed. On merits, additions based on third-party seized cash entries were deleted because the material came from other entities, the witness retracted the earlier statement, and no independent corroboration connected the assessee to any cash receipt. Digital entries from a pen drive were inadmissible without a valid section 65B certificate, and presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee. Section 56(2)(x) failed because actual receipt without consideration was not proved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
