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 consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
A consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.