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...
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
