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 held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
