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 High Court considered a case involving dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds, determining if a legally enforceable debt existed. The accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court assessed evidence to prove cheque execution, rebutting statutory presumptions u/s 139 and 118 of the NI Act. Referring to legal precedents, it highlighted the onus on the accused akin to civil proceedings and the standard of proof required to rebut presumptions. Emphasizing the principle that if two views are possible, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal. The court upheld the finding that the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court considered a case involving dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds, determining if a legally enforceable debt existed. The accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court assessed evidence to prove cheque execution, rebutting statutory presumptions u/s 139 and 118 of the NI Act. Referring to legal precedents, it highlighted the onus on the accused akin to civil proceedings and the standard of proof required to rebut presumptions. Emphasizing the principle that if two views are possible, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal. The court upheld the finding that the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
