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...
NCLAT held that the operational creditor's Section 9 application was not maintainable due to failure to meet the statutory threshold limit of Rs 1 crore. The tribunal found prima facie evidence of suppressed payments and manipulated ledger accounts. By factoring in subsequent payments made by the corporate debtor after the critical date, the outstanding debt fell below the prescribed minimum limit. The appellate tribunal determined that the adjudicating authority was misled into initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) ex parte. Consequently, the appeal was admitted, and the CIRP triggering was deemed unwarranted, effectively setting aside the earlier order.
NCLAT held that the operational creditor's Section 9 application was not maintainable due to failure to meet the statutory threshold limit of Rs 1 crore. The tribunal found prima facie evidence of suppressed payments and manipulated ledger accounts. By factoring in subsequent payments made by the corporate debtor after the critical date, the outstanding debt fell below the prescribed minimum limit. The appellate tribunal determined that the adjudicating authority was misled into initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) ex parte. Consequently, the appeal was admitted, and the CIRP triggering was deemed unwarranted, effectively setting aside the earlier order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
