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...
Defreezing of bank accounts - Implication of Non-Reporting of Seizure Forthwith to the Magistrate - The Supreme Court judgment addresses the critical question of whether delayed reporting of seizures to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. nullifies the seizure order. The Court traced the legislative history and examined conflicting precedents, concluding that delayed reporting is a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive illegality. The Court defined the term "forthwith" and clarified that non-compliance with the reporting requirement does not invalidate the seizure. The validity of the seizure depends on the jurisdictional and substantive grounds, not procedural compliance. - In the present case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to de-freeze the bank accounts of the respondents, directing them to execute a bond to deposit the seized amount if found guilty.
Defreezing of bank accounts - Implication of Non-Reporting of Seizure Forthwith to the Magistrate - The Supreme Court judgment addresses the critical question of whether delayed reporting of seizures to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. nullifies the seizure order. The Court traced the legislative history and examined conflicting precedents, concluding that delayed reporting is a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive illegality. The Court defined the term "forthwith" and clarified that non-compliance with the reporting requirement does not invalidate the seizure. The validity of the seizure depends on the jurisdictional and substantive grounds, not procedural compliance. - In the present case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to de-freeze the bank accounts of the respondents, directing them to execute a bond to deposit the seized amount if found guilty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
