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...
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Immovable Property or not - fabrication and setting up of entire paint shop - The case involved the appellant's availing of CENVAT credit on materials used in erecting a paint shop in their factory. The department contended that the paint shop, being immovable property, was not eligible for credit. However, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the items used for setting up the paint shop qualified as capital goods eligible for credit. It emphasized the relevance of specific tariff headings and previous cases supporting the eligibility of credit on such items. Additionally, the tribunal rejected the department's invocation of the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant.
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Immovable Property or not - fabrication and setting up of entire paint shop - The case involved the appellant's availing of CENVAT credit on materials used in erecting a paint shop in their factory. The department contended that the paint shop, being immovable property, was not eligible for credit. However, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the items used for setting up the paint shop qualified as capital goods eligible for credit. It emphasized the relevance of specific tariff headings and previous cases supporting the eligibility of credit on such items. Additionally, the tribunal rejected the department's invocation of the extended period, finding no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
