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...
Written acceptance of an enhanced import value does not, by itself, extinguish the importer's right to challenge reassessment or rejection of the declared transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the importers' letters sought provisional or final clearance on payment under protest, so the facts were not of unconditional consent simpliciter. Relying on Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad & Sons, it held that such acceptance may relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5), but it does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to dispute the reassessment. Orders rejecting the appeals solely on that basis were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.
Written acceptance of an enhanced import value does not, by itself, extinguish the importer's right to challenge reassessment or rejection of the declared transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the importers' letters sought provisional or final clearance on payment under protest, so the facts were not of unconditional consent simpliciter. Relying on Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad & Sons, it held that such acceptance may relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5), but it does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to dispute the reassessment. Orders rejecting the appeals solely on that basis were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
