Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.