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...
Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies where there is an operative SEBI order prohibiting a person from accessing the securities market or trading in securities. Because the appellant fell within the class covered by the 26.06.2018 SEBI prohibition, and that order had neither been set aside nor successfully challenged, the Adjudicating Authority was not required to examine its correctness or validity in insolvency proceedings. Authorities on Companies Act disqualification and moratorium-based recovery were inapplicable. The appellant was therefore ineligible to submit a resolution plan, and rejection of the application was upheld.
Section 29A(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies where there is an operative SEBI order prohibiting a person from accessing the securities market or trading in securities. Because the appellant fell within the class covered by the 26.06.2018 SEBI prohibition, and that order had neither been set aside nor successfully challenged, the Adjudicating Authority was not required to examine its correctness or validity in insolvency proceedings. Authorities on Companies Act disqualification and moratorium-based recovery were inapplicable. The appellant was therefore ineligible to submit a resolution plan, and rejection of the application was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
