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 respondent claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit, which was rejected for non-compliance with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued u/r 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of 'input service' u/r 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing and clearance of final products. Each input service involved was held eligible for CENVAT credit based on various decisions. Refund eligibility cannot be questioned in refund proceedings as per the HCL Comnet case. Invoices addressed to the corporate office instead of manufacturing premises was a technical lapse, and substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural irregularities. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The respondent claimed refund of accumulated CENVAT credit, which was rejected for non-compliance with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued u/r 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The definition of 'input service' u/r 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used directly or indirectly in manufacturing and clearance of final products. Each input service involved was held eligible for CENVAT credit based on various decisions. Refund eligibility cannot be questioned in refund proceedings as per the HCL Comnet case. Invoices addressed to the corporate office instead of manufacturing premises was a technical lapse, and substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural irregularities. The CESTAT upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.