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...
Mis-declaration - Imported goods declared as Indonesia Robusta Coffee - 100% EOU - Goods imported was Coffee husk and not Coffee beans - The High Court observed that, the counsel of the respondent (importer) is right in his submission that confiscation could not be ordered unless goods were seized. Further, since the respondent Unit is 100% EOU, even if there were to be a mistake in declaration, unless it is proved by the Customs Authority that the goods are not re-exported or sold in the domestic market, the entire issue remains revenue neutral in nature. In any event, the CESTAT has reserved liberty to the importer to submit a fresh application under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. In that view of the matter, the Revenue cannot have any grievance. Resultantly, this appeal must fail.
Mis-declaration - Imported goods declared as Indonesia Robusta Coffee - 100% EOU - Goods imported was Coffee husk and not Coffee beans - The High Court observed that, the counsel of the respondent (importer) is right in his submission that confiscation could not be ordered unless goods were seized. Further, since the respondent Unit is 100% EOU, even if there were to be a mistake in declaration, unless it is proved by the Customs Authority that the goods are not re-exported or sold in the domestic market, the entire issue remains revenue neutral in nature. In any event, the CESTAT has reserved liberty to the importer to submit a fresh application under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules. In that view of the matter, the Revenue cannot have any grievance. Resultantly, this appeal must fail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
