Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Palmolein classification defeated the crude-oil concession; material misdeclaration sustained recovery and confiscation, while separate false-document...
PFUTP liability for alleged settlement-price depression requires...
Settlement-price depression requires proof of manipulation, not merely short exposure, late selling, or below-market orders, preserving disclosure penalties.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
PFUTP liability for alleged settlement-price depression requires cogent evidence of a manipulative act directed at producing an artificial price, not merely a large short derivatives position, closing-window cash sales, or sell orders below the last traded price. Fraud under Regulation 2(1)(c) ordinarily requires inducement; where inducement is not directly established, manipulation requires compelling evidence from market-wide activity, execution mechanics, commercial rationale, and causal price impact. Position-limit breaches and agency-based concentration may support disclosure penalties but do not alone prove fraud. Combined exposure across all derivative contracts must be considered where required by the governing framework. Failure to establish intended price depression precluded PFUTP fraud and disgorgement, while the non-disclosure penalty remained.
PFUTP liability for alleged settlement-price depression requires cogent evidence of a manipulative act directed at producing an artificial price, not merely a large short derivatives position, closing-window cash sales, or sell orders below the last traded price. Fraud under Regulation 2(1)(c) ordinarily requires inducement; where inducement is not directly established, manipulation requires compelling evidence from market-wide activity, execution mechanics, commercial rationale, and causal price impact. Position-limit breaches and agency-based concentration may support disclosure penalties but do not alone prove fraud. Combined exposure across all derivative contracts must be considered where required by the governing framework. Failure to establish intended price depression precluded PFUTP fraud and disgorgement, while the non-disclosure penalty remained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
