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...
Provisional attachment under the PMLA was upheld because the controlling requirement is material showing possession of proceeds of crime linked to a scheduled offence, and the provision is not limited to persons named in the predicate case. The Court accepted that reasons to believe may be based on circumstantial material, including financial patterns, seized documents and Section 50 statements, and held that the burden under Section 24 shifted once the attached property was shown to be involved in money laundering. It also held that proceeds of crime includes value equivalent assets, so properties acquired before the offence period may be attached if the original tainted assets are unavailable. The challenge to the single-member coram was rejected.
Provisional attachment under the PMLA was upheld because the controlling requirement is material showing possession of proceeds of crime linked to a scheduled offence, and the provision is not limited to persons named in the predicate case. The Court accepted that reasons to believe may be based on circumstantial material, including financial patterns, seized documents and Section 50 statements, and held that the burden under Section 24 shifted once the attached property was shown to be involved in money laundering. It also held that proceeds of crime includes value equivalent assets, so properties acquired before the offence period may be attached if the original tainted assets are unavailable. The challenge to the single-member coram was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
