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...
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Initially claim filed without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry - During the appeal process, the appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, which was initially rejected but later allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the amendment of bills of entry to reflect the correct duty rate, enabling the appellant to seek a refund of excess duty paid. Following the High Court's directive, the Adjudicating Authority granted the refund, stating that there was no unjust enrichment based on evidence provided.
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Initially claim filed without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry - During the appeal process, the appellant sought to amend the bills of entry, which was initially rejected but later allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the amendment of bills of entry to reflect the correct duty rate, enabling the appellant to seek a refund of excess duty paid. Following the High Court's directive, the Adjudicating Authority granted the refund, stating that there was no unjust enrichment based on evidence provided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.