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...
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
