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...
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.