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 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the modification of a Demerger Scheme's terms by changing the Appointed Date to the date of the Impugned Order's pronouncement. The Tribunal held that if statutory provisions are complied with and there is no violation of law or public policy, the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to question the commercial wisdom of those approving the scheme. Altering the Appointed Date could have significant financial implications, and the Tribunal's role is supervisory if all sanctioning parameters are met. The reliance on a previous case was deemed incorrect as the Appointed Date should align with the scheme's provisions. The appeal was allowed, confirming the Appointed Date as per the scheme and not the date of the NCLT's pronouncement.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the modification of a Demerger Scheme's terms by changing the Appointed Date to the date of the Impugned Order's pronouncement. The Tribunal held that if statutory provisions are complied with and there is no violation of law or public policy, the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to question the commercial wisdom of those approving the scheme. Altering the Appointed Date could have significant financial implications, and the Tribunal's role is supervisory if all sanctioning parameters are met. The reliance on a previous case was deemed incorrect as the Appointed Date should align with the scheme's provisions. The appeal was allowed, confirming the Appointed Date as per the scheme and not the date of the NCLT's pronouncement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
