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...
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
