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 customs broker penalty dispute turned on whether a medicine exported as MIGRAN, containing Ergotamine, fell within Schedule-B and required a Narcotic Commissioner NOC. The Tribunal held that Schedule-B covered only Ergotamine and its salts, not preparations containing it, so the NOC-based penalty could not stand. It also found that knowledge of undeclared additional medicine could not fairly be attributed to the broker on the facts, given the exporter's stated ignorance and the technical uncertainty surrounding the product. In any event, it held that the residuary penalty under Section 117 was unavailable where the CBLR contained a specific penalty provision, and it set aside the penalty order.
A customs broker penalty dispute turned on whether a medicine exported as MIGRAN, containing Ergotamine, fell within Schedule-B and required a Narcotic Commissioner NOC. The Tribunal held that Schedule-B covered only Ergotamine and its salts, not preparations containing it, so the NOC-based penalty could not stand. It also found that knowledge of undeclared additional medicine could not fairly be attributed to the broker on the facts, given the exporter's stated ignorance and the technical uncertainty surrounding the product. In any event, it held that the residuary penalty under Section 117 was unavailable where the CBLR contained a specific penalty provision, and it set aside the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
