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...
Vesting of title on confiscation: the Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130(1) and title vests in the State under Section 130(5), the remedial release regime under Section 129 is no longer available; subsequent adjudication on confiscation, valuation, tax, penalty, interest and fine is governed exclusively by Section 130, and a collateral challenge limited to a prior Section 129 order is impermissible where the Section 130 order remains unchallenged. The Single Judge erred in ordering release; the writ is set aside and the respondent must pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107(6) with prescribed pre-deposit terms.
Vesting of title on confiscation: the Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130(1) and title vests in the State under Section 130(5), the remedial release regime under Section 129 is no longer available; subsequent adjudication on confiscation, valuation, tax, penalty, interest and fine is governed exclusively by Section 130, and a collateral challenge limited to a prior Section 129 order is impermissible where the Section 130 order remains unchallenged. The Single Judge erred in ordering release; the writ is set aside and the respondent must pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107(6) with prescribed pre-deposit terms.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.