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...
FDI received as equity or preferential capital was treated as investment in securities, not borrowing in rupees, so the borrowing-and-lending regulations did not apply to the alleged use of funds. Adverse findings on downstream investment and the TISPRO regime were also unsustainable where the show cause notices did not set out the necessary factual basis and the alleged recipient was a society, not another Indian company. FDI-in-trust restrictions were inapplicable on the record, and Section 6(3)(e) did not cover the transactions. Once the company-level contravention failed, the vicarious penalty on the managing director under FEMA also fell away.
FDI received as equity or preferential capital was treated as investment in securities, not borrowing in rupees, so the borrowing-and-lending regulations did not apply to the alleged use of funds. Adverse findings on downstream investment and the TISPRO regime were also unsustainable where the show cause notices did not set out the necessary factual basis and the alleged recipient was a society, not another Indian company. FDI-in-trust restrictions were inapplicable on the record, and Section 6(3)(e) did not cover the transactions. Once the company-level contravention failed, the vicarious penalty on the managing director under FEMA also fell away.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
