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 the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition despite the petitioner not challenging the allegedly erroneous orders. The Court clarified that a writ of prohibition is typically used to supervise and restrict courts or tribunals from acting beyond their jurisdiction. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the distinction between issuing writs of certiorari and prohibition to correct jurisdictional errors. While both writs can correct jurisdictional errors, certiorari corrects after a decision, and prohibition can prevent errors before a decision. In this case, as the appellate authority had already made a determination, issuing a writ of prohibition was deemed unnecessary. The Court found the petitioner's request to defer recovery without seeking adjudication of rights insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition despite the petitioner not challenging the allegedly erroneous orders. The Court clarified that a writ of prohibition is typically used to supervise and restrict courts or tribunals from acting beyond their jurisdiction. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing the distinction between issuing writs of certiorari and prohibition to correct jurisdictional errors. While both writs can correct jurisdictional errors, certiorari corrects after a decision, and prohibition can prevent errors before a decision. In this case, as the appellate authority had already made a determination, issuing a writ of prohibition was deemed unnecessary. The Court found the petitioner's request to defer recovery without seeking adjudication of rights insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.