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 138 of the NI Act is not confined to cheques issued for the drawer's own personal liability; a cheque drawn towards a legally enforceable liability of another person may also attract penal consequences on dishonour. The Court therefore rejected the objection based on absence of privity and the claim that the petitioner was not a party to the underlying consent award, holding that the complaint could proceed on a prima facie basis. Challenges that no amount was due, that the cheque was a gift, or that it formed part of a without-prejudice settlement raised disputed factual defences that could not be resolved at the process stage and had to be tested at trial.
Section 138 of the NI Act is not confined to cheques issued for the drawer's own personal liability; a cheque drawn towards a legally enforceable liability of another person may also attract penal consequences on dishonour. The Court therefore rejected the objection based on absence of privity and the claim that the petitioner was not a party to the underlying consent award, holding that the complaint could proceed on a prima facie basis. Challenges that no amount was due, that the cheque was a gift, or that it formed part of a without-prejudice settlement raised disputed factual defences that could not be resolved at the process stage and had to be tested at trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
