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 petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must establish foundational facts, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA. Statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA while the accused was in custody are inadmissible against the maker and can only provide corroboration. The alleged cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner was not substantiated. The court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and constitutional courts must lean towards constitutionalism and rule of law. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with stringent conditions.
The petitioner was granted bail by the High Court in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must establish foundational facts, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption u/s 24 of the PMLA. Statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA while the accused was in custody are inadmissible against the maker and can only provide corroboration. The alleged cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner was not substantiated. The court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and constitutional courts must lean towards constitutionalism and rule of law. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with stringent conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
