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...
During CIRP, moratorium protection under the Insolvency Code preserves the corporate debtor's possession and status quo, preventing lease termination, re-entry and eviction that would recover property from the debtor. The High Court construed Section 14 broadly to cover statutory eviction proceedings as well as civil suits, and treated the explanation to Section 14(1) as clarificatory rather than an exception permitting breach-based action. It further held that any inconsistency between the Public Premises Act and the insolvency regime was resolved by Section 238 in favour of the Code. On that basis, the lease termination and eviction orders were quashed and the appeal was dismissed.
During CIRP, moratorium protection under the Insolvency Code preserves the corporate debtor's possession and status quo, preventing lease termination, re-entry and eviction that would recover property from the debtor. The High Court construed Section 14 broadly to cover statutory eviction proceedings as well as civil suits, and treated the explanation to Section 14(1) as clarificatory rather than an exception permitting breach-based action. It further held that any inconsistency between the Public Premises Act and the insolvency regime was resolved by Section 238 in favour of the Code. On that basis, the lease termination and eviction orders were quashed and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
