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...
A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan's distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender's assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.
A registered sub-lease deed creating a first charge can constitute a security interest under the Insolvency Code, so NOIDA was not to be treated as an ordinary operational creditor and the resolution plan's distribution had to be reconsidered to that extent. By contrast, the lender's assignee could claim no higher security than the assignor, and its security over a real estate project was confined to unsold inventory because allotments to homebuyers were protected under RERA; the plan payment to the dissenting secured creditor therefore did not breach Sections 30(2)(b) or 53. Objections on valuation and plan comparison fell within the CoC's commercial wisdom, and no material irregularity was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
