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...
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.