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...
Levy of penalty u/s 9-B (3) of the OST Act - The fact of the matter is that as far as the installed capacity was concerned, with the exemption on payment of sales tax on the finished product having come to end on 1st December 1993, the Petitioner was bound to collect the sales tax on the finished product which in fact it did. It was this tax that the Petitioner deposited with the Department - the explanation offered by the Petitioner that it was bound to collect the sales tax for this period is both logical and correct. If that is the position, then there is no justification in imposing any penalty on the Petitioner for these two years on the ground that it had illegally collected sales tax. - HC
Levy of penalty u/s 9-B (3) of the OST Act - The fact of the matter is that as far as the installed capacity was concerned, with the exemption on payment of sales tax on the finished product having come to end on 1st December 1993, the Petitioner was bound to collect the sales tax on the finished product which in fact it did. It was this tax that the Petitioner deposited with the Department - the explanation offered by the Petitioner that it was bound to collect the sales tax for this period is both logical and correct. If that is the position, then there is no justification in imposing any penalty on the Petitioner for these two years on the ground that it had illegally collected sales tax. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
