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 528 BNSS confers an extraordinary inherent power to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a substitute for the ordinary statutory remedy. The HC held that a composite challenge to distinct criminal orders arising at different stages could not be maintained in a single rolled-up petition, especially where the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge were separately revisable. Because the petitioner had an efficacious remedy, did not pursue it within limitation, and approached the court belatedly after trial had commenced and participation in proceedings had occurred, the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the revisional forum. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and conversion into a criminal revision was refused.
Section 528 BNSS confers an extraordinary inherent power to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a substitute for the ordinary statutory remedy. The HC held that a composite challenge to distinct criminal orders arising at different stages could not be maintained in a single rolled-up petition, especially where the orders rejecting discharge and framing charge were separately revisable. Because the petitioner had an efficacious remedy, did not pursue it within limitation, and approached the court belatedly after trial had commenced and participation in proceedings had occurred, the inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the revisional forum. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and conversion into a criminal revision was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
