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...
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.