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 disputed refund of advance paid for supply of goods was not treated as an undisputed operational debt, because the parties had continued negotiations, entered a later settlement arrangement, and the corporate debtor had asserted forfeiture for failure to lift stock within time. On that basis, debt and default were held not to coexist for Section 9 insolvency relief, and any challenge to forfeiture had to be pursued elsewhere. The Tribunal also held that limitation ran from the first refund demand, so the insolvency notice issued more than three years later was time-barred under Article 137. The Section 9 application was therefore dismissed.
A disputed refund of advance paid for supply of goods was not treated as an undisputed operational debt, because the parties had continued negotiations, entered a later settlement arrangement, and the corporate debtor had asserted forfeiture for failure to lift stock within time. On that basis, debt and default were held not to coexist for Section 9 insolvency relief, and any challenge to forfeiture had to be pursued elsewhere. The Tribunal also held that limitation ran from the first refund demand, so the insolvency notice issued more than three years later was time-barred under Article 137. The Section 9 application was therefore dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
