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...
Where a debt had been adjudicated by the DRT and a recovery certificate issued, the liability was treated as a financial debt, and section 7 CIRP could be initiated within three years from the recovery certificate, or at the latest from the DRT order. The applications against the corporate guarantors were therefore not barred by limitation, and they could not reopen limitation by relying only on the original NPA date where joint and several liability had already been fastened. The Tribunal also found that the applications contained material particulars by referring to the DRT orders, the recovery certificate and the quantified default, so rejection for want of a separately stated default date was erroneous. The impugned orders were quashed and the matters remitted for decision on merits.
Where a debt had been adjudicated by the DRT and a recovery certificate issued, the liability was treated as a financial debt, and section 7 CIRP could be initiated within three years from the recovery certificate, or at the latest from the DRT order. The applications against the corporate guarantors were therefore not barred by limitation, and they could not reopen limitation by relying only on the original NPA date where joint and several liability had already been fastened. The Tribunal also found that the applications contained material particulars by referring to the DRT orders, the recovery certificate and the quantified default, so rejection for want of a separately stated default date was erroneous. The impugned orders were quashed and the matters remitted for decision on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
