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...
Refund entitlement for zero-rated export services turns on a proper examination of the true nature of the transaction under the governing provisions. The HC held that the adjudicating authority failed to do so and also failed to consider the relevant circular on the effect of non-furnishing of a Letter of Undertaking. It accepted that omission to furnish an LUT/Bond is not an incurable defect and may be considered later for refund purposes. Because the character of the services and the refund claim based on the LUT were not addressed, the adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after permitting production of the LUT.
Refund entitlement for zero-rated export services turns on a proper examination of the true nature of the transaction under the governing provisions. The HC held that the adjudicating authority failed to do so and also failed to consider the relevant circular on the effect of non-furnishing of a Letter of Undertaking. It accepted that omission to furnish an LUT/Bond is not an incurable defect and may be considered later for refund purposes. Because the character of the services and the refund claim based on the LUT were not addressed, the adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after permitting production of the LUT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
