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...
Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - unloading goods at a location not specified in the e-way bill - The petitioner argues that the unloading occurred at their own registered godown, with no intent to evade tax. The court underscores the importance of establishing mens rea for penalty imposition, citing precedents. It distinguishes minor errors from major lapses and concludes that the minor typographical error in the e-way bill, coupled with the absence of intent to evade tax, renders the penalty unwarranted.
Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - unloading goods at a location not specified in the e-way bill - The petitioner argues that the unloading occurred at their own registered godown, with no intent to evade tax. The court underscores the importance of establishing mens rea for penalty imposition, citing precedents. It distinguishes minor errors from major lapses and concludes that the minor typographical error in the e-way bill, coupled with the absence of intent to evade tax, renders the penalty unwarranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.