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...
Related-party customs valuation cannot be rejected where the relationship has not influenced price, especially when the imports form part of composite EPC contracts awarded through international competitive bidding to the lowest bidder. The Tribunal accepted that the declared transaction value was correctly taken because the pricing was transparent and independent, and bankers' documents relied on to allege overvaluation lacked the required certificate under the Customs Act, so they could not justify rejection of value. Once misdeclaration of value failed, confiscation for misdeclaration and the consequential penalties under the Customs Act also failed. The department's appeals were dismissed.
Related-party customs valuation cannot be rejected where the relationship has not influenced price, especially when the imports form part of composite EPC contracts awarded through international competitive bidding to the lowest bidder. The Tribunal accepted that the declared transaction value was correctly taken because the pricing was transparent and independent, and bankers' documents relied on to allege overvaluation lacked the required certificate under the Customs Act, so they could not justify rejection of value. Once misdeclaration of value failed, confiscation for misdeclaration and the consequential penalties under the Customs Act also failed. The department's appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
