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...
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
