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 service - works contract service or not - The CESTAT held that the appellant’s contracts were clearly split into goods and services, which did not meet the criteria of a 'works contract' under the relevant tax laws. It was noted that the appellant had appropriately paid taxes—VAT on goods and service tax on installation services—as per the contract terms, which were well-supported by invoices. - Further the tribunal held that since the repeal of certain provisions and notifications post-July 2012, the show cause notices based on these repealed laws were incorrect. - Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s approach of inclusion / amalgamating the value of goods and services for taxation under a 'works contract' was unfounded.
Valuation of service - works contract service or not - The CESTAT held that the appellant’s contracts were clearly split into goods and services, which did not meet the criteria of a 'works contract' under the relevant tax laws. It was noted that the appellant had appropriately paid taxes—VAT on goods and service tax on installation services—as per the contract terms, which were well-supported by invoices. - Further the tribunal held that since the repeal of certain provisions and notifications post-July 2012, the show cause notices based on these repealed laws were incorrect. - Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s approach of inclusion / amalgamating the value of goods and services for taxation under a 'works contract' was unfounded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
