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 examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term "may" and requires the authority to have "reason to believe" that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT's approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
HC examined whether confiscation of funds in NRE/SB accounts used in contravention of FERA, 1973, is mandatory or discretionary under Section 63. HC held that, as Section 63 uses the term "may" and requires the authority to have "reason to believe" that the amounts are related to the proved breach, confiscation is discretionary and cannot be automatic or imposed as a matter of course. In the present case, the confiscation order was passed without independent application of mind. AT had rightly considered the nature of violations and set aside the routine confiscation. HC found no perversity in AT's approach and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
