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...
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
