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...
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
