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 allowed the applicant's bail application and ordered release on furnishing appropriate surety. The applicant, accused of embezzling funds exceeding Rs.120 crores through fictitious suppliers to facilitate illegal sales and GST evasion, was held to face a prosecution principally reliant on documentary and electronic evidence, with investigation completed and trial likely to be protracted. Although the offence under s.132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act is cognizable and non-bailable, it carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no antecedent criminal record and there is no demonstrable risk of tampering with documentary proof; accordingly, applying settled principles governing custodial bail, release on bail was directed.
HC allowed the applicant's bail application and ordered release on furnishing appropriate surety. The applicant, accused of embezzling funds exceeding Rs.120 crores through fictitious suppliers to facilitate illegal sales and GST evasion, was held to face a prosecution principally reliant on documentary and electronic evidence, with investigation completed and trial likely to be protracted. Although the offence under s.132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act is cognizable and non-bailable, it carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no antecedent criminal record and there is no demonstrable risk of tampering with documentary proof; accordingly, applying settled principles governing custodial bail, release on bail was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
