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...
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
