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...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
