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...
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
