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...
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
