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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India's name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO's authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.
Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India's name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO's authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
