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 appellant challenged the dismissal of its application filed u/s 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues were: existence of debt and default, applicability of Vidarbha Industries ratio, judicious application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority, acknowledgment of debt and default by the respondent, and the appellant's right to raise disputed issues through a rejoinder. The NCLAT held that there was outstanding debt and clear default by the respondent, entitling the appellant to file u/s 7. The Adjudicating Authority failed to apply the Vidarbha Industries ratio correctly and ignored the respondent's acknowledgments of debt and default. The appellant was permitted to raise issues through the rejoinder. The NCLAT ruled that the appellant was not duty-bound to assign its debts to EARC. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing, considering all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
The appellant challenged the dismissal of its application filed u/s 7 of the Code by the Adjudicating Authority. The key issues were: existence of debt and default, applicability of Vidarbha Industries ratio, judicious application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority, acknowledgment of debt and default by the respondent, and the appellant's right to raise disputed issues through a rejoinder. The NCLAT held that there was outstanding debt and clear default by the respondent, entitling the appellant to file u/s 7. The Adjudicating Authority failed to apply the Vidarbha Industries ratio correctly and ignored the respondent's acknowledgments of debt and default. The appellant was permitted to raise issues through the rejoinder. The NCLAT ruled that the appellant was not duty-bound to assign its debts to EARC. The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh hearing, considering all relevant facts. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
