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 of imported goods under Rule 9 and 10(1)(c) - addition of payment made towards royalty -100% subsidy of foreign supplier - Related party - The CESTAT observed that, the Royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. - The Tribunal held that, as seen from the Rules the Original Authority has after rejected all other methods has arrived at the loaded value as per Rule 9 which is last in the sequence. The Commissioner having rejected this method of enhancement of value cannot remand the case for redetermination under any other method as it has already attained finality and there is no appeal on that method of valuation. Hence the remand to redetermine is not sustainable and hence set aside.
Valuation of imported goods under Rule 9 and 10(1)(c) - addition of payment made towards royalty -100% subsidy of foreign supplier - Related party - The CESTAT observed that, the Royalty is not payable in instances of trading of imported finished goods and on goods repacked in India and it is only for use of technology to produce the products in India. - The Tribunal held that, as seen from the Rules the Original Authority has after rejected all other methods has arrived at the loaded value as per Rule 9 which is last in the sequence. The Commissioner having rejected this method of enhancement of value cannot remand the case for redetermination under any other method as it has already attained finality and there is no appeal on that method of valuation. Hence the remand to redetermine is not sustainable and hence set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
