Internal CUP benchmarking for fixed-rate Masala Bonds prevails over floating external comparables, eliminating the related transfer-pricing adjustment...
Jurisdictional validity of revision notices: incorrect official capacity and mere change of opinion invalidate revision of property income assessments...
Bogus-purchase additions are limited to embedded profit where corresponding sales are accepted, while accommodation-entry information can support reas...
Fair-hearing requirements require supply of documents relied on in pleadings where the retention order is founded on them; service of a panchnama alone does not provide an adequate opportunity to respond. Retention of seized documents is justified only when they are relied on in a prosecution complaint or supplementary complaint and required to prove the case against an accused. Documents not so required must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained. The retention direction was consequently limited to documents necessary as prosecution evidence.
Fair-hearing requirements require supply of documents relied on in pleadings where the retention order is founded on them; service of a panchnama alone does not provide an adequate opportunity to respond. Retention of seized documents is justified only when they are relied on in a prosecution complaint or supplementary complaint and required to prove the case against an accused. Documents not so required must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained. The retention direction was consequently limited to documents necessary as prosecution evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.