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 held that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for recovery of unpaid sale consideration do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, as mere sale transactions do not amount to entrustment of goods. The Court criticized the High Court for permitting criminal proceedings in a pure civil dispute, emphasizing that such resort amounts to abuse of process. The SC underscored established jurisprudence clarifying the distinction between civil claims and criminal breach of trust. Observations by the High Court suggesting criminal prosecution as a substitute for civil recovery were condemned. Consequently, the SC set aside the impugned High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, partially allowing the appeal.
The SC held that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for recovery of unpaid sale consideration do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, as mere sale transactions do not amount to entrustment of goods. The Court criticized the High Court for permitting criminal proceedings in a pure civil dispute, emphasizing that such resort amounts to abuse of process. The SC underscored established jurisprudence clarifying the distinction between civil claims and criminal breach of trust. Observations by the High Court suggesting criminal prosecution as a substitute for civil recovery were condemned. Consequently, the SC set aside the impugned High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, partially allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
