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...
The case involved smuggling of gold bars of foreign origin, seized from two individuals boarding a train. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted them at a railway station and found gold bars concealed in their trolley bags. The individuals failed to produce any documents for the goods. The Adjudicating authority's decision to seize and confiscate the gold bars was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere as the appellants did not provide specific evidence to challenge the decision. The appeal was dismissed.
The case involved smuggling of gold bars of foreign origin, seized from two individuals boarding a train. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted them at a railway station and found gold bars concealed in their trolley bags. The individuals failed to produce any documents for the goods. The Adjudicating authority's decision to seize and confiscate the gold bars was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere as the appellants did not provide specific evidence to challenge the decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
