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...
Compounding of offences - threshold limit of holding directorship in companies - This Court is of the opinion that earlier one show cause notice was issued on 07.04.2017, for which the petitioner has sent a reply dated 14.04.2017. Thereafter the petitioner also filed a Compounding Application under Section 441 of the Act on 12.05.2017, for compounding of the offence under Section 165 of the Act. Without considering the Compounding Application, the respondent issued another show cause notice on 23.06.2017 and for which also, the petitioner had sent a reply on 10.07.2017, intimating the pendency of the Compounding Application, to the respondent. - the criminal complaint for offence under Section 165 r/w 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, is quashed. - HC
Compounding of offences - threshold limit of holding directorship in companies - This Court is of the opinion that earlier one show cause notice was issued on 07.04.2017, for which the petitioner has sent a reply dated 14.04.2017. Thereafter the petitioner also filed a Compounding Application under Section 441 of the Act on 12.05.2017, for compounding of the offence under Section 165 of the Act. Without considering the Compounding Application, the respondent issued another show cause notice on 23.06.2017 and for which also, the petitioner had sent a reply on 10.07.2017, intimating the pendency of the Compounding Application, to the respondent. - the criminal complaint for offence under Section 165 r/w 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, is quashed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
