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...
This is a summary of a legal case related to the dishonor of a cheque. The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of consideration for the cheque by providing satisfactory evidence. The accused did not dispute taking the loan, issuing the cheque, or their signature on the cheque. The burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability, which they failed to do. The accused also failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receiving the court summons, precluding them from claiming non-receipt of notice. The court upheld the trial court's sentence, including a fine of twice the cheque amount along with 9% simple interest per annum as compensation, as it was not excessive given the legal expenses and loss of interest incurred by the complainant over the three-year period.
This is a summary of a legal case related to the dishonor of a cheque. The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of consideration for the cheque by providing satisfactory evidence. The accused did not dispute taking the loan, issuing the cheque, or their signature on the cheque. The burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability, which they failed to do. The accused also failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receiving the court summons, precluding them from claiming non-receipt of notice. The court upheld the trial court's sentence, including a fine of twice the cheque amount along with 9% simple interest per annum as compensation, as it was not excessive given the legal expenses and loss of interest incurred by the complainant over the three-year period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
