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...
This case pertains to the utilization of ineligible CENVAT credit by a company. The key points are: The company availed ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,30,84,835/- which was not permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax must be issued within 18 months, extendable to 5 years in case of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts. The company had disclosed all relevant information regarding CENVAT credit availed in its ST-3 returns. The Commissioner alleged misstatement and contravention with intent to evade tax, which the High Court found perverse as the show-cause notice did not mention willful misstatement or suppression. The Supreme Court has held that for invoking extended limitation, the show-cause notice must specifically mention willful misstatement or suppression. As the company disclosed facts and there was no allegation of willful suppression, the CESTAT order was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
This case pertains to the utilization of ineligible CENVAT credit by a company. The key points are: The company availed ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,30,84,835/- which was not permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, a show-cause notice for non-payment of service tax must be issued within 18 months, extendable to 5 years in case of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts. The company had disclosed all relevant information regarding CENVAT credit availed in its ST-3 returns. The Commissioner alleged misstatement and contravention with intent to evade tax, which the High Court found perverse as the show-cause notice did not mention willful misstatement or suppression. The Supreme Court has held that for invoking extended limitation, the show-cause notice must specifically mention willful misstatement or suppression. As the company disclosed facts and there was no allegation of willful suppression, the CESTAT order was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
