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 Tribunal held that the 180-day period for provisional attachment was saved by exclusion of the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, so the impugned orders were within time. It rejected challenges to maintainability, finding the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations supported by the FIR, ECIR, money trail, statements, and unexplained diversion of funds, while the Supreme Court interim order did not bar attachment proceedings. It further held that the appellants failed to prove a legitimate source for jewellery and immovable properties in family members' names, and that Section 8(3) empowers retention or continuation of freezing without a prior Section 20 order. All appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the 180-day period for provisional attachment was saved by exclusion of the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, so the impugned orders were within time. It rejected challenges to maintainability, finding the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations supported by the FIR, ECIR, money trail, statements, and unexplained diversion of funds, while the Supreme Court interim order did not bar attachment proceedings. It further held that the appellants failed to prove a legitimate source for jewellery and immovable properties in family members' names, and that Section 8(3) empowers retention or continuation of freezing without a prior Section 20 order. All appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
