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...
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
