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...
Insolvency and BankruptcyDecember 25, 2020Case LawsAT
Initiation of CIRP - Whether the ‘Dispute’ pertaining to the invoice was settled between the parties? - The material on record, specifically the email dated 08.02.2019 evidences that the ‘Dispute’ is not ‘transaction centric’ but is an ongoing ‘Dispute’. Additionally, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that November 2017 ‘Dispute’ was settled. The correspondence between the parties establishes that the ‘Dispute’ is with respect to substandard material supplied for both the consignments and explicitly refers to ‘problem of adhesion’ which led to laminates becoming unusable. - AT
Initiation of CIRP - Whether the ‘Dispute’ pertaining to the invoice was settled between the parties? - The material on record, specifically the email dated 08.02.2019 evidences that the ‘Dispute’ is not ‘transaction centric’ but is an ongoing ‘Dispute’. Additionally, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that November 2017 ‘Dispute’ was settled. The correspondence between the parties establishes that the ‘Dispute’ is with respect to substandard material supplied for both the consignments and explicitly refers to ‘problem of adhesion’ which led to laminates becoming unusable. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
