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...
Over-valuation of imported goods - application of rule 4 - value of identical goods - The contract between APML/APRL and EIF is for entire gamut of goods and services and hence cannot be compared with stand alone supply contract with Original Equipment Manufacturers. Invoices issued under two different sets of contractual obligation cannot be compared and relied upon to determine the value. Rule 11, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case - the revenue has sought to invoke rule 9 by placing reliance on payments made by EIF to different vendors and/or manufacturers of the goods. The said evidence has been held to be not conclusive, as the revenue has considered the payment made through Axis Bank and Bank of Baroda only. - AT
Over-valuation of imported goods - application of rule 4 - value of identical goods - The contract between APML/APRL and EIF is for entire gamut of goods and services and hence cannot be compared with stand alone supply contract with Original Equipment Manufacturers. Invoices issued under two different sets of contractual obligation cannot be compared and relied upon to determine the value. Rule 11, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case - the revenue has sought to invoke rule 9 by placing reliance on payments made by EIF to different vendors and/or manufacturers of the goods. The said evidence has been held to be not conclusive, as the revenue has considered the payment made through Axis Bank and Bank of Baroda only. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
