"I am Delhi Delhi-based advocate specializing in tax litigation and advisory, especially to corporates. I represent taxpayers at all tax tribunals and High Courts. we also undertake advisory in Mergers and Acquisitions matters. My contact details are vgrmc2018@gmail.com. 9811728992."
ITAT held that execution of a registered joint development agreement amounts to transfer of land. Capital gains timing must be determined from that date, not a later year chosen by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening after four years is invalid without alleging failure to disclose material facts. The reassessment was barred by the proviso to section 147.
The issue concerned valuation of royalty for bundled services. ITAT held that faulty comparables vitiated the CUP analysis and ordered fresh benchmarking.
The Supreme Court held that capital gains from indirect transfers deriving value from Indian assets were taxable in India. The key takeaway is that treaty protection cannot shield arrangements lacking real commercial substance.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credit addition cannot survive once identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established through documentary evidence. The key takeaway is that mere low income of creditors is insufficient without contrary investigation.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that inclusion of giant companies distorted arm’s length results for a small captive service provider. High-turnover companies were excluded to ensure meaningful comparability.
The Court held that failure of a creditor to file a return for the relevant year cannot alone justify a Section 68 addition. Once identity and banking trail are proved, the burden on the assessee stands discharged.
The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when sufficient interest-free own funds are available, reinforcing limits on Rule 8D application.
The issue was whether an assessment could be reopened after four years. The Court held that full disclosure by the taxpayer barred reassessment under Section 147.
