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...
Scope of the term “Principal Officer” of the company for the purposes of initiating prosecution u/s 276B - The High Court opinioned that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity would not be sufficient to place that individual in clause (b). The intention of the respondent to treat an individual as the “Principal Officer” must be based on it being satisfied that the person was connected with the management or administration of the company. - The court finds that the respondents failed to establish the petitioner's connection with the management or administration of the company based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication.
Scope of the term “Principal Officer” of the company for the purposes of initiating prosecution u/s 276B - The High Court opinioned that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity would not be sufficient to place that individual in clause (b). The intention of the respondent to treat an individual as the “Principal Officer” must be based on it being satisfied that the person was connected with the management or administration of the company. - The court finds that the respondents failed to establish the petitioner's connection with the management or administration of the company based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
