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...
Quashing of criminal proceedings is confined to exceptional cases where the FIR or charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, discloses no offence; here, the High Court held that departmental records, returns, software-generated data, bank details and witness statements disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. The plea that the dispute fell exclusively under the VAT statute was rejected because a special fiscal remedy does not bar penal prosecution where allegations also indicate deception and fraudulent conduct. Objections based on sanction, reassessment, rival witness versions, alleged principal offender status, tax payment and delay were treated as disputed factual issues for trial. The petition for quashing was dismissed and the prosecution was allowed to continue.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is confined to exceptional cases where the FIR or charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, discloses no offence; here, the High Court held that departmental records, returns, software-generated data, bank details and witness statements disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. The plea that the dispute fell exclusively under the VAT statute was rejected because a special fiscal remedy does not bar penal prosecution where allegations also indicate deception and fraudulent conduct. Objections based on sanction, reassessment, rival witness versions, alleged principal offender status, tax payment and delay were treated as disputed factual issues for trial. The petition for quashing was dismissed and the prosecution was allowed to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
