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...
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
