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...
Unjust enrichment does not bar a customs-duty refund where evidence establishes that the duty incidence was not passed to buyers. A Chartered Accountant certificate, Bills of Entry and sales invoices showing bunker oil was sold below its import value supported non-recovery of even the import cost. Once that material was produced, Revenue needed tangible evidence that buyers bore the duty; recording duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was insufficient. The High Court upheld the finding that the importer had not passed on the duty incidence, so the refund was properly allowed and no substantial question of law arose.
Unjust enrichment does not bar a customs-duty refund where evidence establishes that the duty incidence was not passed to buyers. A Chartered Accountant certificate, Bills of Entry and sales invoices showing bunker oil was sold below its import value supported non-recovery of even the import cost. Once that material was produced, Revenue needed tangible evidence that buyers bore the duty; recording duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was insufficient. The High Court upheld the finding that the importer had not passed on the duty incidence, so the refund was properly allowed and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.