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...
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
