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 rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicants u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the application was not maintainable as the summons were issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the power of the appropriate officer to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The Court distinguished this from Section 69, which deals with the power to arrest a delinquent person. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, which held that provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked if summons are issued u/s 69. The Court found no significant difference between Sections 69 and 70 and held that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
The High Court rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicants u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the application was not maintainable as the summons were issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the power of the appropriate officer to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The Court distinguished this from Section 69, which deals with the power to arrest a delinquent person. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, which held that provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked if summons are issued u/s 69. The Court found no significant difference between Sections 69 and 70 and held that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
