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...
A suit by an unregistered partnership firm was maintainable because the claim arose from non-gratuitous supply of goods, not from enforcement of a contractual right, so the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not apply. The court held that Section 70 of the Contract Act was satisfied: the goods were lawfully delivered, the defendant retained the benefit, and no agreement existed on essential terms such as price or credit, making the claim one for quantum meruit. The court also rejected objections to summary procedure and statement of truth, and accepted the invoices, e-way bills and GST records as proof of supply. The principal claim was decreed in full with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.
A suit by an unregistered partnership firm was maintainable because the claim arose from non-gratuitous supply of goods, not from enforcement of a contractual right, so the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not apply. The court held that Section 70 of the Contract Act was satisfied: the goods were lawfully delivered, the defendant retained the benefit, and no agreement existed on essential terms such as price or credit, making the claim one for quantum meruit. The court also rejected objections to summary procedure and statement of truth, and accepted the invoices, e-way bills and GST records as proof of supply. The principal claim was decreed in full with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
