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 an unchallenged BIFR order disposing of MA No. 442/2011 attained finality, so the company could not reopen a claim for entry tax exemption after that proceeding ended. It further held that there was no deemed consent by the State to the rehabilitation scheme's tax concession clause because the State had expressly ? no, must be English. The State had expressly refused consent during objections to the draft scheme, so Clause 20 was not binding on it under SICA. The Tribunal also held that no relief could be founded on the invalid Central Government notification of 24 May 2017, and the NCLT correctly rejected the petition for exemption.
The Tribunal held that an unchallenged BIFR order disposing of MA No. 442/2011 attained finality, so the company could not reopen a claim for entry tax exemption after that proceeding ended. It further held that there was no deemed consent by the State to the rehabilitation scheme's tax concession clause because the State had expressly ? no, must be English. The State had expressly refused consent during objections to the draft scheme, so Clause 20 was not binding on it under SICA. The Tribunal also held that no relief could be founded on the invalid Central Government notification of 24 May 2017, and the NCLT correctly rejected the petition for exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
