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...
Remission of Central Excise Duty - The tribunal found Rule 21 inapplicable, as it pertains to goods lost or destroyed before clearance from the factory, not to loss of production capacity. - It was held that the appellant could not claim abatement for non-production under Rule 8, as the factory's closure did not meet the minimum period stipulated for such abatement. - The tribunal dismissed the argument of unjust enrichment by referencing the Supreme Court's stance that refund claims based on taxes paid under an unconstitutional law are not unconditional and highlighted that the concept of unjust enrichment does not apply straightforwardly to the state in cases of tax collection and refund.
Remission of Central Excise Duty - The tribunal found Rule 21 inapplicable, as it pertains to goods lost or destroyed before clearance from the factory, not to loss of production capacity. - It was held that the appellant could not claim abatement for non-production under Rule 8, as the factory's closure did not meet the minimum period stipulated for such abatement. - The tribunal dismissed the argument of unjust enrichment by referencing the Supreme Court's stance that refund claims based on taxes paid under an unconstitutional law are not unconditional and highlighted that the concept of unjust enrichment does not apply straightforwardly to the state in cases of tax collection and refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
