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 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Section 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
