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...
At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the PMLA, the court reiterated that the enquiry is limited to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, raises prima facie grave suspicion; the accused's defence and disputed explanations are not to be weighed at that stage. On the record, the court found sufficient material showing alleged bribery-linked layering, concealment and projection of proceeds as untainted property, so the refusal to discharge and framing of charge were upheld. Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA were treated as admissible and capable of corroborating documentary evidence. The Special Court at Ranchi was also held to have territorial jurisdiction because the scheduled offence and alleged conspiracy were connected with Ranchi, and no patent illegality justified revisional interference.
At the discharge and charge-framing stage under the PMLA, the court reiterated that the enquiry is limited to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, raises prima facie grave suspicion; the accused's defence and disputed explanations are not to be weighed at that stage. On the record, the court found sufficient material showing alleged bribery-linked layering, concealment and projection of proceeds as untainted property, so the refusal to discharge and framing of charge were upheld. Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA were treated as admissible and capable of corroborating documentary evidence. The Special Court at Ranchi was also held to have territorial jurisdiction because the scheduled offence and alleged conspiracy were connected with Ranchi, and no patent illegality justified revisional interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
