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...
Valid country of origin certificates under the India-ASEAN PTA Rules, the India-Malaysia PTA Rules and the exemption notifications could not be ignored for preferential customs duty unless they were invalidated through the prescribed retroactive verification mechanism. CESTAT held that Customs was bound to act on the certificates as documentary proof of origin, and the Revenue's reliance on a later Madras High Court decision was distinguishable because that case involved serious discrepancies in the certificate itself. It also held that, for the relevant period, the importer had no mandatory obligation to prove how regional value content was satisfied; that requirement arose only after Section 28DA and the CAROTAR Rules. The denial of exemption, with demand, interest and penalty, was set aside.
Valid country of origin certificates under the India-ASEAN PTA Rules, the India-Malaysia PTA Rules and the exemption notifications could not be ignored for preferential customs duty unless they were invalidated through the prescribed retroactive verification mechanism. CESTAT held that Customs was bound to act on the certificates as documentary proof of origin, and the Revenue's reliance on a later Madras High Court decision was distinguishable because that case involved serious discrepancies in the certificate itself. It also held that, for the relevant period, the importer had no mandatory obligation to prove how regional value content was satisfied; that requirement arose only after Section 28DA and the CAROTAR Rules. The denial of exemption, with demand, interest and penalty, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
