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 BankruptcyApril 15, 2024Case LawsAT
Initiation of CIRP based on a corporate guarantee provided to a consortium of lenders- Validity of deed of Guarantee - The tribunal noted that the guarantee exceeded the statutory limits under Section 186 but highlighted that the corporate debtor and principal borrower were closely linked family businesses. This closeness implied a level of awareness and consent to the risks involved, undermining the appellant's argument for invalidity based on statutory non-compliance. It was established that the deed of guarantee was executed in favor of the trusteeship managing the consortium’s interest, thus granting the lenders, including the respondent bank, the right to enforce the guarantee. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of lack of privity of contract.
Initiation of CIRP based on a corporate guarantee provided to a consortium of lenders- Validity of deed of Guarantee - The tribunal noted that the guarantee exceeded the statutory limits under Section 186 but highlighted that the corporate debtor and principal borrower were closely linked family businesses. This closeness implied a level of awareness and consent to the risks involved, undermining the appellant's argument for invalidity based on statutory non-compliance. It was established that the deed of guarantee was executed in favor of the trusteeship managing the consortium’s interest, thus granting the lenders, including the respondent bank, the right to enforce the guarantee. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim of lack of privity of contract.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
