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...
The High Court held that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applied once bank records proved presentation and dishonour of the cheque, and the demand notice was admittedly received. The absence of a reverse signature, deposit slip, or a dishonour entry in the account statement did not discredit the bank evidence, particularly where the branch merger and CBS procedure explained the transaction trail. The accused failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the existence of debt and liability was proved. The Court also held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or failure of justice, and therefore upheld the concurrent conviction and sentence.
The High Court held that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applied once bank records proved presentation and dishonour of the cheque, and the demand notice was admittedly received. The absence of a reverse signature, deposit slip, or a dishonour entry in the account statement did not discredit the bank evidence, particularly where the branch merger and CBS procedure explained the transaction trail. The accused failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the existence of debt and liability was proved. The Court also held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or failure of justice, and therefore upheld the concurrent conviction and sentence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
