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...
Valuation u/s 15(3) - Validity of GST on volume discount - Petitioner submited that, GST is levied and paid on the entire invoice amount, which includes volume discount. - Demand of GST on volume discount would be double taxation. - The High Court observed that, there is no scope for confusing the discount offered to the petitioner and the discounted price at which the petitioner effects further sale to its customers. They are two independent transactions and there is no scope for intermingling them for demanding tax from the petitioner. The discounted price at which the petitioner sells the goods is relevant only for determining the “transaction value” adopted by the petitioner. - Consequently, HC restored back the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.
Valuation u/s 15(3) - Validity of GST on volume discount - Petitioner submited that, GST is levied and paid on the entire invoice amount, which includes volume discount. - Demand of GST on volume discount would be double taxation. - The High Court observed that, there is no scope for confusing the discount offered to the petitioner and the discounted price at which the petitioner effects further sale to its customers. They are two independent transactions and there is no scope for intermingling them for demanding tax from the petitioner. The discounted price at which the petitioner sells the goods is relevant only for determining the “transaction value” adopted by the petitioner. - Consequently, HC restored back the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
