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...
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held unsuitable for quashing a pending CGST criminal prosecution where the complaint raised several disputed factual issues requiring trial. The Court treated the complaint as the foundation of the prosecution and declined to undertake any fact-finding inquiry or interfere with triable matters. It also held that Suncraft Energy (P) Ltd. was inapplicable because that decision concerned revenue action, not a pending criminal prosecution. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all factual and jurisdictional objections before the jurisdictional criminal court during trial.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held unsuitable for quashing a pending CGST criminal prosecution where the complaint raised several disputed factual issues requiring trial. The Court treated the complaint as the foundation of the prosecution and declined to undertake any fact-finding inquiry or interfere with triable matters. It also held that Suncraft Energy (P) Ltd. was inapplicable because that decision concerned revenue action, not a pending criminal prosecution. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all factual and jurisdictional objections before the jurisdictional criminal court during trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
