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...
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
