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...
A director's personal penalty liability was sustained where his conscious participation in undervaluation and use of dual invoices culminated in import clearance in India, giving the offence a direct territorial nexus with India. The Tribunal held that customs penal provisions could apply notwithstanding that some acts originated outside India, because the fraudulent importation was completed in India and his liability was independent of any separate action against the foreign company. Penalty under section 112(a) was upheld on evidence of deliberate involvement in the undervaluation mechanism, and penalty under section 114AA was also sustained because false invoices were knowingly prepared and used for customs transactions.
A director's personal penalty liability was sustained where his conscious participation in undervaluation and use of dual invoices culminated in import clearance in India, giving the offence a direct territorial nexus with India. The Tribunal held that customs penal provisions could apply notwithstanding that some acts originated outside India, because the fraudulent importation was completed in India and his liability was independent of any separate action against the foreign company. Penalty under section 112(a) was upheld on evidence of deliberate involvement in the undervaluation mechanism, and penalty under section 114AA was also sustained because false invoices were knowingly prepared and used for customs transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
