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...
Classification of "quicklime" imported goods - The CESTAT considered the chemical composition of the imported "quicklime" and previous judgments on similar matters. - On the percentage of chemical composition, the highest percentage of ‘available CaO2/calcium oxide is 92.8%’. - The Tribunal found that the "quicklime" imported by the appellants does not fall under the high purity category required for classification under CTI 2825 9090 and is instead correctly classified under CTI 2522 10 00, aligning with the appellants' declaration.
Classification of "quicklime" imported goods - The CESTAT considered the chemical composition of the imported "quicklime" and previous judgments on similar matters. - On the percentage of chemical composition, the highest percentage of ‘available CaO2/calcium oxide is 92.8%’. - The Tribunal found that the "quicklime" imported by the appellants does not fall under the high purity category required for classification under CTI 2825 9090 and is instead correctly classified under CTI 2522 10 00, aligning with the appellants' declaration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.