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...
Illegal removal of a seized container and substitution through forged gate passes was treated as a serious breach of HCCAR supervision and customs compliance, but revocation of custodianship was held to be a disproportionate response. The Tribunal noted recovery of the goods, police findings showing no material against management, cooperation with investigation, and corrective measures taken thereafter. It upheld penalty for the violations but declined the severest consequence of revocation. On vicarious liability, it held that employee misconduct alone, without evidence of knowledge, connivance or conscious facilitation by management, could not justify revocation, and the Department failed to show grounds for appellate interference.
Illegal removal of a seized container and substitution through forged gate passes was treated as a serious breach of HCCAR supervision and customs compliance, but revocation of custodianship was held to be a disproportionate response. The Tribunal noted recovery of the goods, police findings showing no material against management, cooperation with investigation, and corrective measures taken thereafter. It upheld penalty for the violations but declined the severest consequence of revocation. On vicarious liability, it held that employee misconduct alone, without evidence of knowledge, connivance or conscious facilitation by management, could not justify revocation, and the Department failed to show grounds for appellate interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
