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...
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
