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...
Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email evidence showing coordinated bidding, allocation of shares, tender distribution, price discussions, bid withdrawal directions and continued receipt of cartel communications without dissociation; contravention under Sections 3(1) and 3(3)(a) to (d) was therefore affirmed. Once cartel conduct was established, the presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition applied and was not rebutted; reliance on Rajasthan Cylinder was distinguished. The partner's liability under Section 48 was upheld, and penalty based on average income at the same rate as the firm was held proper. Challenges based on vacancy in composition and denial of cross-examination failed, and both appeals were dismissed.
Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email evidence showing coordinated bidding, allocation of shares, tender distribution, price discussions, bid withdrawal directions and continued receipt of cartel communications without dissociation; contravention under Sections 3(1) and 3(3)(a) to (d) was therefore affirmed. Once cartel conduct was established, the presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition applied and was not rebutted; reliance on Rajasthan Cylinder was distinguished. The partner's liability under Section 48 was upheld, and penalty based on average income at the same rate as the firm was held proper. Challenges based on vacancy in composition and denial of cross-examination failed, and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
