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 CoC-approved resolution plan remains binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval. The Tribunal applied Ebix Singapore and State Bank of India v. Consortium of Murarilal Jalan to hold that the CoC had no jurisdiction to authorise the Resolution Professional to seek withdrawal of the pending plan approval application. It further held that post-submission CoC meetings under Regulation 18(2) may deal only with matters not affecting the resolution plan. The order allowing withdrawal on the RP's oral request was set aside, the approval application was revived, and the separate promoter-related application was left open.
A CoC-approved resolution plan remains binding inter se the CoC and the successful resolution applicant even before approval by the adjudicating authority, and cannot be withdrawn or modified after submission for approval. The Tribunal applied Ebix Singapore and State Bank of India v. Consortium of Murarilal Jalan to hold that the CoC had no jurisdiction to authorise the Resolution Professional to seek withdrawal of the pending plan approval application. It further held that post-submission CoC meetings under Regulation 18(2) may deal only with matters not affecting the resolution plan. The order allowing withdrawal on the RP's oral request was set aside, the approval application was revived, and the separate promoter-related application was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
