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...
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Input tax credit cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer who transacted with a registered supplier and complied with statutory requirements merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the purchaser. The proper remedy is to proceed against the defaulting supplier, not to shift the burden onto the purchaser by way of vicarious liability. The demand and appellate orders were set aside because the controversy was covered by binding precedent, but the Department retained liberty to act in accordance with law if material shows the transactions were collusive or not bona fide.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.