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...
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Section 37A had to be read as a whole, so the Directorate of Enforcement could challenge a seizure order after being heard before the Competent Authority; the departmental appeal was therefore maintainable. On the merits, subscription to a foreign company's shares, even through memorandum of association, constituted direct investment outside India and fell within foreign security. The Tribunal held that paid-up capital was not a precondition for acquisition, holding or transfer, and the Competent Authority erred in treating the shares as valueless and finding no contravention. It also held that equivalent value seizure under Section 37A is a one-time securing measure and cannot be duplicated for the same foreign security.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
