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...
Centralised service tax registration fixes jurisdiction for issuing and deciding demand proceedings, and proceedings initiated by a different Commissionerate were held unsustainable where the taxpayer's centralised registration with Kolkata was undisputed. The Tribunal also held that the contract was for execution of specified loading and unloading work, not manpower supply, because payment was linked to output, the contractor retained supervision and control, and liability for improper handling remained with the contractor. On that basis, no reverse charge service tax liability arose. The demand failed both on jurisdiction and on merits, and the impugned order was set aside.
Centralised service tax registration fixes jurisdiction for issuing and deciding demand proceedings, and proceedings initiated by a different Commissionerate were held unsustainable where the taxpayer's centralised registration with Kolkata was undisputed. The Tribunal also held that the contract was for execution of specified loading and unloading work, not manpower supply, because payment was linked to output, the contractor retained supervision and control, and liability for improper handling remained with the contractor. On that basis, no reverse charge service tax liability arose. The demand failed both on jurisdiction and on merits, and the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
