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...
Remission of duty - Application of Section 23 - duty free goods brought into SEZ and the same were destroyed in fire or otherwise - The Appellate Tribunal noted that there have been previous cases where goods destroyed in SEZs were found eligible for remission of duty under the Customs Act. Citing a specific case (ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Vs. CC), the Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of goods lies with the appellant, but negligence was not proven in this instance. Additionally, it was noted that the absence of customs inspection or analysis further supported the appellant's claim of lack of negligence. - The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to remission of duty.
Remission of duty - Application of Section 23 - duty free goods brought into SEZ and the same were destroyed in fire or otherwise - The Appellate Tribunal noted that there have been previous cases where goods destroyed in SEZs were found eligible for remission of duty under the Customs Act. Citing a specific case (ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. Vs. CC), the Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of goods lies with the appellant, but negligence was not proven in this instance. Additionally, it was noted that the absence of customs inspection or analysis further supported the appellant's claim of lack of negligence. - The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to remission of duty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
