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...
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
