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...
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
