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 BankruptcyJuly 20, 2022Case LawsTri
CIRP - recovery of Provident Fund with interest - Tenability of the orders and the recovery notices which have been passed by the Respondent, admittedly, after the moratorium was imposed by this Learned Adjudicating Authority - In the present case, the Applicant (Liquidator) has contended that he has admitted certain claims in relation to the dues relating to the provident fund. The Applicant is required to make payments of the admitted dues in priority as has already been held in various cases by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The Applicant (Liquidator) is duty bound, as per the Law laid down to ascertain and prioritise the payments of the social welfare dues. - Orders passed by the Respondent, the orders being in violation of the moratorium imposed are liable to be set aside. - Tri
CIRP - recovery of Provident Fund with interest - Tenability of the orders and the recovery notices which have been passed by the Respondent, admittedly, after the moratorium was imposed by this Learned Adjudicating Authority - In the present case, the Applicant (Liquidator) has contended that he has admitted certain claims in relation to the dues relating to the provident fund. The Applicant is required to make payments of the admitted dues in priority as has already been held in various cases by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The Applicant (Liquidator) is duty bound, as per the Law laid down to ascertain and prioritise the payments of the social welfare dues. - Orders passed by the Respondent, the orders being in violation of the moratorium imposed are liable to be set aside. - Tri
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
