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 sanctioned scheme of arrangement assigning specified creditors' claims to the 63 Moons Group was held binding on all specified creditors, including dissenters, because the claims pursued in the civil suits arose from the same NSEL payment default and fell within the scheme. Once the settlement trigger event occurred, those claims, including claims against consenting brokers, stood assigned to the assignee, so the appellants could not continue independent civil proceedings for covered claims. The Tribunal also refused to revisit the scheme's legality, noting that earlier orders upholding it had already attained finality and were affirmed on merits by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.
A sanctioned scheme of arrangement assigning specified creditors' claims to the 63 Moons Group was held binding on all specified creditors, including dissenters, because the claims pursued in the civil suits arose from the same NSEL payment default and fell within the scheme. Once the settlement trigger event occurred, those claims, including claims against consenting brokers, stood assigned to the assignee, so the appellants could not continue independent civil proceedings for covered claims. The Tribunal also refused to revisit the scheme's legality, noting that earlier orders upholding it had already attained finality and were affirmed on merits by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
