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 examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
