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...
Special Additional Duty refund limitation under an amending customs exemption notification is addressed in relation to a claim rejected solely for filing beyond one year. The limitation was treated as requiring read-down because subordinate legislation could not impose a time bar affecting substantive refund rights without applying a statutory limitation under the parent enactment. A contrary High Court view was noted, but the refund claim was treated as covered by the decisions supporting read-down. The time-bar rejection was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law.
Special Additional Duty refund limitation under an amending customs exemption notification is addressed in relation to a claim rejected solely for filing beyond one year. The limitation was treated as requiring read-down because subordinate legislation could not impose a time bar affecting substantive refund rights without applying a statutory limitation under the parent enactment. A contrary High Court view was noted, but the refund claim was treated as covered by the decisions supporting read-down. The time-bar rejection was set aside, with consequential relief in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.