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...
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.