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 corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for prior liability after the approval of the Resolution Plan, as per Section 32-A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the protection u/s 32-A is limited to the corporate debtor and does not extend to its Directors who were in charge when the offence was committed or were signatories to the cheque. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheshuyam Goenka case clarified that in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the plan is approved or the company dissolved during the pendency, the Directors and other accused cannot escape liability by citing dissolution. They will have to continue facing prosecution. The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions.
The corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for prior liability after the approval of the Resolution Plan, as per Section 32-A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the protection u/s 32-A is limited to the corporate debtor and does not extend to its Directors who were in charge when the offence was committed or were signatories to the cheque. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheshuyam Goenka case clarified that in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the plan is approved or the company dissolved during the pendency, the Directors and other accused cannot escape liability by citing dissolution. They will have to continue facing prosecution. The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
