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...
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
