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...
Advance Authorisation disputes over duty-free gold turned on whether later-regularised supporting manufacturers and clerical errors in export documents amounted to diversion or breach of the Actual User condition. The Tribunal treated dispatch to manufacturers later endorsed by DGFT as a curable procedural lapse, not unauthorised diversion, and found no basis for confiscation. It also accepted that excess jewellery over the invoice declaration arose from a clerical mistake, with no mens rea or pecuniary gain, so confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable. Because the gold was seized before expiry of the export-obligation period and remained part of authorised imports, absolute confiscation was also set aside. Penalties failed with the confiscations and were deleted.
Advance Authorisation disputes over duty-free gold turned on whether later-regularised supporting manufacturers and clerical errors in export documents amounted to diversion or breach of the Actual User condition. The Tribunal treated dispatch to manufacturers later endorsed by DGFT as a curable procedural lapse, not unauthorised diversion, and found no basis for confiscation. It also accepted that excess jewellery over the invoice declaration arose from a clerical mistake, with no mens rea or pecuniary gain, so confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable. Because the gold was seized before expiry of the export-obligation period and remained part of authorised imports, absolute confiscation was also set aside. Penalties failed with the confiscations and were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
