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 court granted custodial bail to the accused, who had no criminal antecedents, in a case involving illegal mining and revenue loss. The accused filed a petition directly before the High Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction u/s 439 CrPC. The court observed that dismissing the petition solely on the ground of bypassing the Sessions Court would deprive the accused of the statutory right to have the bail petition adjudicated by the Sessions Court first. Considering the duration of judicial custody and the stage of investigation, the court found no justification to continue detention. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, the court held that bail decisions must consider the cumulative effect of various circumstances. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
The court granted custodial bail to the accused, who had no criminal antecedents, in a case involving illegal mining and revenue loss. The accused filed a petition directly before the High Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction u/s 439 CrPC. The court observed that dismissing the petition solely on the ground of bypassing the Sessions Court would deprive the accused of the statutory right to have the bail petition adjudicated by the Sessions Court first. Considering the duration of judicial custody and the stage of investigation, the court found no justification to continue detention. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, the court held that bail decisions must consider the cumulative effect of various circumstances. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
