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...
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
