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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued by SEBI. The key findings were: the arguments of delay, laches, review, revisit, double jeopardy, and res judicata were not accepted to quash the notice at this stage, allowing petitioners to raise such defenses before SEBI. The Court found no non-application of mind by SEBI in issuing the notice based on the available material. SEBI agreed to provide certain information related to an earlier complaint within two weeks. Petitioners were granted four weeks after receiving that information to file their response to the show cause notice. The Court declined to interfere further, stating that fairness is a two-way process, and prolonging adjudication unnecessarily should be avoided. The extraordinary jurisdiction was not meant for stalling proceedings at every stage.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued by SEBI. The key findings were: the arguments of delay, laches, review, revisit, double jeopardy, and res judicata were not accepted to quash the notice at this stage, allowing petitioners to raise such defenses before SEBI. The Court found no non-application of mind by SEBI in issuing the notice based on the available material. SEBI agreed to provide certain information related to an earlier complaint within two weeks. Petitioners were granted four weeks after receiving that information to file their response to the show cause notice. The Court declined to interfere further, stating that fairness is a two-way process, and prolonging adjudication unnecessarily should be avoided. The extraordinary jurisdiction was not meant for stalling proceedings at every stage.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
