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 the seized goods - (i) Grey metal powder suspected to be Iridium, (ii) Grey metal powder suspected to be Ruthenium, (iii) Micro SD Memory cards, (iv) Stone beads ('Chaton') and (v) Branded watches - The adjudicating authority arrived at the valuation using various sources such as metal bulletins, NIDB data, purchase invoices, and website details. The Appellate Tribunal found the valuation to be appropriate except for Ruthenium, where it disagreed with the method used by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal determined the value of Ruthenium at Rs. 3,00,000 per kg, which was within the range identified by the authority. Accordingly, the duty payable by the appellants was re-quantified based on the revised valuation.
Valuation of the seized goods - (i) Grey metal powder suspected to be Iridium, (ii) Grey metal powder suspected to be Ruthenium, (iii) Micro SD Memory cards, (iv) Stone beads ('Chaton') and (v) Branded watches - The adjudicating authority arrived at the valuation using various sources such as metal bulletins, NIDB data, purchase invoices, and website details. The Appellate Tribunal found the valuation to be appropriate except for Ruthenium, where it disagreed with the method used by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal determined the value of Ruthenium at Rs. 3,00,000 per kg, which was within the range identified by the authority. Accordingly, the duty payable by the appellants was re-quantified based on the revised valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
