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 SC set aside both the original bail order and subsequent modification order due to the petitioner's contradictory conduct regarding a Rs. 50,00,000 deposit condition. The petitioner initially offered the monetary deposit through counsel, secured bail modification allowing payment post-release, then repudiated the offer claiming counsel lacked authority and the condition was onerous. The Court held that while excessive bail constitutes no bail and onerous conditions should be avoided, parties cannot "approbate and reprobate" or manipulate judicial proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Despite the petitioner's conduct warranting re-incarceration, limited interim protection from surrender was granted. The Chief Justice of Madras HC was directed to place the matter before appropriate court by 30.06.2025. SLP disposed.
The SC set aside both the original bail order and subsequent modification order due to the petitioner's contradictory conduct regarding a Rs. 50,00,000 deposit condition. The petitioner initially offered the monetary deposit through counsel, secured bail modification allowing payment post-release, then repudiated the offer claiming counsel lacked authority and the condition was onerous. The Court held that while excessive bail constitutes no bail and onerous conditions should be avoided, parties cannot "approbate and reprobate" or manipulate judicial proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Despite the petitioner's conduct warranting re-incarceration, limited interim protection from surrender was granted. The Chief Justice of Madras HC was directed to place the matter before appropriate court by 30.06.2025. SLP disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
