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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
