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 Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under section 60(5) to entertain the Resolution Professional's eviction application because the corporate debtor's ownership of the premises was undisputed and recovery of its own asset fell within the duty to take control, custody, preservation and protection of assets. The appellant failed to prove any tenancy, lease or licence; the record showed only permissive stocking of goods, with no rent, lease terms, or possessory right. The civil court's interim order did not bar eviction, as the Code excludes civil court jurisdiction where the insolvency forum is competent. The appeal was dismissed and possession was directed to be handed over to the Resolution Professional.
The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under section 60(5) to entertain the Resolution Professional's eviction application because the corporate debtor's ownership of the premises was undisputed and recovery of its own asset fell within the duty to take control, custody, preservation and protection of assets. The appellant failed to prove any tenancy, lease or licence; the record showed only permissive stocking of goods, with no rent, lease terms, or possessory right. The civil court's interim order did not bar eviction, as the Code excludes civil court jurisdiction where the insolvency forum is competent. The appeal was dismissed and possession was directed to be handed over to the Resolution Professional.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
