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 - stamping foils - rejection of declared value - The tribunal found that the department's reliance on proforma invoices for A-grade goods was misplaced, given the appellant's importation of B and C-grade goods. The tribunal also recognized the appellant's submission of contemporaneous import data supporting their declared values. - The tribunal concurred with the appellant that there was no evidence of extra payment to the foreign supplier beyond the invoice values. - Tribunal held that the appellant's declared values were justified, and the initial inculpatory statement could not be relied upon due to the coercive circumstances under which it was obtained.
Valuation of imported goods - stamping foils - rejection of declared value - The tribunal found that the department's reliance on proforma invoices for A-grade goods was misplaced, given the appellant's importation of B and C-grade goods. The tribunal also recognized the appellant's submission of contemporaneous import data supporting their declared values. - The tribunal concurred with the appellant that there was no evidence of extra payment to the foreign supplier beyond the invoice values. - Tribunal held that the appellant's declared values were justified, and the initial inculpatory statement could not be relied upon due to the coercive circumstances under which it was obtained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
