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...
Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the penalty. On adjudication, the penalty was imposed only under section 114A of the Act and there was no reference at all to the provisions of section 112 of the Act - The Tribunal found that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty u/s 112 when the original penalty was imposed u/s 114A. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty u/s 114A and imposed a penalty u/s 112, which was beyond their jurisdiction.
Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the penalty. On adjudication, the penalty was imposed only under section 114A of the Act and there was no reference at all to the provisions of section 112 of the Act - The Tribunal found that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty u/s 112 when the original penalty was imposed u/s 114A. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty u/s 114A and imposed a penalty u/s 112, which was beyond their jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.