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...
In arbitration review, the High Court reiterated that interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, but an award is vulnerable if it rests on no evidence or ignores vital material. Applying that standard, it held that the arbitrator had relied only on the final bill and ignored RA bills and other records showing that the amount for non-tendered items included GST to some extent. The Court found that computing GST at 18% on the entire figure was ex facie erroneous and set aside the award partly, leaving recomputation of GST and interest open and permitting the party concerned to pursue the differential claim afresh if so advised.
In arbitration review, the High Court reiterated that interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, but an award is vulnerable if it rests on no evidence or ignores vital material. Applying that standard, it held that the arbitrator had relied only on the final bill and ignored RA bills and other records showing that the amount for non-tendered items included GST to some extent. The Court found that computing GST at 18% on the entire figure was ex facie erroneous and set aside the award partly, leaving recomputation of GST and interest open and permitting the party concerned to pursue the differential claim afresh if so advised.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
