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 BankruptcyMarch 29, 2024Case LawsAT
CIRP - Appellant seeks to modify the project completion date from 03.12.2023 to 03.12.2024, as stated in the subsequent certificate issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) - correction of error in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Tribunal - After considering the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal found that the date mentioned in the judgment accurately reflected the information noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. As such, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake or slip in its judgment that warranted correction.
CIRP - Appellant seeks to modify the project completion date from 03.12.2023 to 03.12.2024, as stated in the subsequent certificate issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) - correction of error in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Tribunal - After considering the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal found that the date mentioned in the judgment accurately reflected the information noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. As such, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake or slip in its judgment that warranted correction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.