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...
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
