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...
Principles of Res-judicata - suo-moto re-credit taken instead of filing refund application - The Tribunal noted that the initial rounds of litigation, up to the High Court, had affirmed the appellant's eligibility to claim Cenvat credit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, which the Tribunal upheld. It was observed that the re-credit was an accounting correction and did not require a refund claim, especially since it was done with Revenue's intimation. The Tribunal ordered the refund of the duty amount deposited by the appellant, with interest. This decision rested on the principle that once an appellate decision becomes final, it is binding, and the administrative authorities must comply without re-litigating settled matters.
Principles of Res-judicata - suo-moto re-credit taken instead of filing refund application - The Tribunal noted that the initial rounds of litigation, up to the High Court, had affirmed the appellant's eligibility to claim Cenvat credit under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, which the Tribunal upheld. It was observed that the re-credit was an accounting correction and did not require a refund claim, especially since it was done with Revenue's intimation. The Tribunal ordered the refund of the duty amount deposited by the appellant, with interest. This decision rested on the principle that once an appellate decision becomes final, it is binding, and the administrative authorities must comply without re-litigating settled matters.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
