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...
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
