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...
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
