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 BankruptcyJanuary 11, 2024Case LawsAT
CIRP - rejection of the claim of the appellant - fraud committed by corporate debtor while executing the "deed of assignment" - The word ‘automatically’ itself empowers the Appellant to put up the claim, declaring that the assignment agreement has been violated by the Appellant by making a false representation that their receivables were not encumbered or charged. The Corporate Debtor has no doubt made the misrepresentation in the deed of assignment which has become evident from the letter of SBI dated 08.06.2017, therefore, finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the termination of the assignment was not valid is neither here nor there. - The RP has committed an error in relying upon Section 21 of the Act, 1996. - AT
CIRP - rejection of the claim of the appellant - fraud committed by corporate debtor while executing the "deed of assignment" - The word ‘automatically’ itself empowers the Appellant to put up the claim, declaring that the assignment agreement has been violated by the Appellant by making a false representation that their receivables were not encumbered or charged. The Corporate Debtor has no doubt made the misrepresentation in the deed of assignment which has become evident from the letter of SBI dated 08.06.2017, therefore, finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the termination of the assignment was not valid is neither here nor there. - The RP has committed an error in relying upon Section 21 of the Act, 1996. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
