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...
An ex parte ad interim injunction restraining a statutory director-removal process was held maintainable in appeal, but the injunction itself was unsustainable. The court held that director status under Section 2(34) is functional and does not depend on shareholding; once appointed and filed in office, the person remains subject to removal under Section 169. It further held that Section 430 barred civil court interference with internal corporate action, and lack of locus before the tribunal did not revive civil jurisdiction because a waiver route was available. The injunction also failed because the order gave no reasoned satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
An ex parte ad interim injunction restraining a statutory director-removal process was held maintainable in appeal, but the injunction itself was unsustainable. The court held that director status under Section 2(34) is functional and does not depend on shareholding; once appointed and filed in office, the person remains subject to removal under Section 169. It further held that Section 430 barred civil court interference with internal corporate action, and lack of locus before the tribunal did not revive civil jurisdiction because a waiver route was available. The injunction also failed because the order gave no reasoned satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
