TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The court examined the validity of search and seizure u/s 132, focusing on the scope of Revenue's power and the "reasons to believe" requirement. It held that the 'satisfaction note' lacked material relating to discrete inquiry and information gathered, failing to reflect the basis for believing the petitioners would not disclose possession of money. The court distinguished "reasons to believe" from "reasons to suspect," emphasizing that the competent authority must have cogent incriminating material prior to seizure to record satisfaction. Mere suspicion or unexplained possession of amount cannot justify action u/s 132. Consequently, the impugned search and seizure was set aside, and the seized amount ordered to be returned, without precluding further lawful proceedings against the petitioners.
The court examined the validity of search and seizure u/s 132, focusing on the scope of Revenue's power and the "reasons to believe" requirement. It held that the 'satisfaction note' lacked material relating to discrete inquiry and information gathered, failing to reflect the basis for believing the petitioners would not disclose possession of money. The court distinguished "reasons to believe" from "reasons to suspect," emphasizing that the competent authority must have cogent incriminating material prior to seizure to record satisfaction. Mere suspicion or unexplained possession of amount cannot justify action u/s 132. Consequently, the impugned search and seizure was set aside, and the seized amount ordered to be returned, without precluding further lawful proceedings against the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
