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...
Money-laundering was treated as a continuing offence, so the PMLA was held applicable even though the properties were acquired before the 2009 amendment inserting Prevention of Corruption Act offences into the Schedule. Departmental permission or intimation for purchase did not prove lawful source of funds, and the appellants failed to establish licit acquisition or independent ownership. Prior seizure in predicate proceedings was distinguished from PMLA attachment, and attachment in third-party names was upheld even where some persons were not arraigned in the scheduled offence. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the provisional attachment and rejected the challenge to the properties as proceeds of crime.
Money-laundering was treated as a continuing offence, so the PMLA was held applicable even though the properties were acquired before the 2009 amendment inserting Prevention of Corruption Act offences into the Schedule. Departmental permission or intimation for purchase did not prove lawful source of funds, and the appellants failed to establish licit acquisition or independent ownership. Prior seizure in predicate proceedings was distinguished from PMLA attachment, and attachment in third-party names was upheld even where some persons were not arraigned in the scheduled offence. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the provisional attachment and rejected the challenge to the properties as proceeds of crime.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
