Cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees is not service consideration; transfer-pricing markup was deleted and amalgamation amortisation allow...
Crystallisation of liability supports prior-period expense deduction, while functionally distinct divisions require separate transfer-pricing benchmar...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Revision cannot rest merely on Insight Portal information that the Assessing Officer already examined during reassessment, where the officer considered explanations and supporting evidence showing that the alleged accommodation-entry transactions did not concern the assessee. The revisional authority must identify discrepancies in the material examined or conduct further inquiry; it cannot substitute its view merely because additional inquiry was possible. Sufficient inquiry by the Assessing Officer distinguishes an impermissible review for allegedly inadequate inquiry from a valid revision based on lack of inquiry.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Revision cannot rest merely on Insight Portal information that the Assessing Officer already examined during reassessment, where the officer considered explanations and supporting evidence showing that the alleged accommodation-entry transactions did not concern the assessee. The revisional authority must identify discrepancies in the material examined or conduct further inquiry; it cannot substitute its view merely because additional inquiry was possible. Sufficient inquiry by the Assessing Officer distinguishes an impermissible review for allegedly inadequate inquiry from a valid revision based on lack of inquiry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.