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...
Interest on refundable revenue deposits, including unspent Personal Ledger Account balances, is payable from the date of deposit where amounts were deposited during investigation before any duty liability was determined and therefore retained the character of revenue deposits. The majority view rejected the Revenue's challenge to interest from the deposit date and dismissed both appeals. The discussion distinguishes statutory and equitable interest and rejects blanket awards of 12% interest based solely on Sandvik, requiring consideration of relevant factors and later Supreme Court guidance. The majority treated the jurisdictional High Court ruling in Parle Agro as governing the entitlement to interest from the deposit date.
Interest on refundable revenue deposits, including unspent Personal Ledger Account balances, is payable from the date of deposit where amounts were deposited during investigation before any duty liability was determined and therefore retained the character of revenue deposits. The majority view rejected the Revenue's challenge to interest from the deposit date and dismissed both appeals. The discussion distinguishes statutory and equitable interest and rejects blanket awards of 12% interest based solely on Sandvik, requiring consideration of relevant factors and later Supreme Court guidance. The majority treated the jurisdictional High Court ruling in Parle Agro as governing the entitlement to interest from the deposit date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
