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...
Refund claim - Payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus instead of availing full exemption under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. - The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the refund claim was not maintainable. It held that the respondent's request for re-assessment under Section 149 constituted an appeal before the authorities. Furthermore, it noted that the respondent was entitled to choose the more beneficial provision for duty payment. - The Tribunal affirmed that when two beneficial notifications are applicable, the assessee has the right to opt for the one more advantageous to them. - Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to the refund, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Refund claim - Payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/2017-Cus instead of availing full exemption under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus. - The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the refund claim was not maintainable. It held that the respondent's request for re-assessment under Section 149 constituted an appeal before the authorities. Furthermore, it noted that the respondent was entitled to choose the more beneficial provision for duty payment. - The Tribunal affirmed that when two beneficial notifications are applicable, the assessee has the right to opt for the one more advantageous to them. - Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's entitlement to the refund, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
