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...
Detention of goods on onward journey - detention on ground goods dispatched to different place than mentioned in documents - levy of penalty u/s 129 of UPGST Act - existence of mens rea or not - Held: It is undisputed purchaser was of Chandpur, but goods consigned to M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh. When goods on onward journey, intercepted as e-way bill mentioned delivery place as Chandpur instead of Aligarh. This error can occur due to human error while filling form/e-way bill. No finding recorded by authorities below of mens rea for evading tax payment. State did not plead intention to evade tax. Court in Nancy Trading Company held error in not generating e-tax invoice before goods movement is human error, and in absence of specific finding regarding mens rea for tax evasion, proceedings u/s 129(3) should not have been initiated. Impugned orders cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
Detention of goods on onward journey - detention on ground goods dispatched to different place than mentioned in documents - levy of penalty u/s 129 of UPGST Act - existence of mens rea or not - Held: It is undisputed purchaser was of Chandpur, but goods consigned to M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh. When goods on onward journey, intercepted as e-way bill mentioned delivery place as Chandpur instead of Aligarh. This error can occur due to human error while filling form/e-way bill. No finding recorded by authorities below of mens rea for evading tax payment. State did not plead intention to evade tax. Court in Nancy Trading Company held error in not generating e-tax invoice before goods movement is human error, and in absence of specific finding regarding mens rea for tax evasion, proceedings u/s 129(3) should not have been initiated. Impugned orders cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
