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 Supreme Court quashed the summoning order issued for offences u/ss 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the non-application of mind by the lower courts. It clarified the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, stating that vicarious liability cannot be attributed to office bearers for these offences unless a statutory provision exists. Mere breach of contract or trust does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless fraudulent intention is proven from inception. In sale of goods, failure to pay consideration cannot amount to criminal breach of trust as the property passes to the purchaser upon delivery. The magistrate and police must carefully apply their mind to ascertain if allegations genuinely constitute these offences before taking cognizance or registering FIR.
The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order issued for offences u/ss 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the non-application of mind by the lower courts. It clarified the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, stating that vicarious liability cannot be attributed to office bearers for these offences unless a statutory provision exists. Mere breach of contract or trust does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless fraudulent intention is proven from inception. In sale of goods, failure to pay consideration cannot amount to criminal breach of trust as the property passes to the purchaser upon delivery. The magistrate and police must carefully apply their mind to ascertain if allegations genuinely constitute these offences before taking cognizance or registering FIR.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
