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...
Disciplinary proceedings - allegation of misconduct - Proceedings against ex-Superintendent of Central Excise - Reliance on confessional statements made by accused persons during the investigation - The High court underscored that disciplinary proceedings require evidence that meets legal principles, and reliance on confessional statements from a separate criminal investigation fails to satisfy this criterion. - It was concluded that the punishment orders were based on improper grounds, as the disciplinary actions were not supported by evidence that could logically prove the charges against the employees according to principles applicable to departmental inquiries. Thus, the punishment orders and the appellate decisions affirming them were quashed, and the employees were entitled to consequential benefits.
Disciplinary proceedings - allegation of misconduct - Proceedings against ex-Superintendent of Central Excise - Reliance on confessional statements made by accused persons during the investigation - The High court underscored that disciplinary proceedings require evidence that meets legal principles, and reliance on confessional statements from a separate criminal investigation fails to satisfy this criterion. - It was concluded that the punishment orders were based on improper grounds, as the disciplinary actions were not supported by evidence that could logically prove the charges against the employees according to principles applicable to departmental inquiries. Thus, the punishment orders and the appellate decisions affirming them were quashed, and the employees were entitled to consequential benefits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
