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...
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Validity of reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities or amalgamating companies. The key points are: 1) Initiating or continuing proceedings against a dissolved company or one that no longer exists in law would invalidate the proceedings. 2) Once a Scheme of Arrangement is approved, the transferor companies are dissolved by operation of law, and proceedings drawn in their name would be a nullity. 3) Sections 159 and 170 of the Act are not applicable in such cases. 4) Invoking Section 154 for rectification to overcome a jurisdictional error is not permissible. 5) Issuing notices u/s 142(1) bearing the PAN of the erstwhile entity, though a mistake, is not a fundamental flaw or incurable illegality. 6) Failure to apprise the authorities about the approved Scheme of Arrangement renders the proceedings valid. 7) The High Court dismissed petitions where disclosures about the Scheme were not made during assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
