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 appeal challenges the revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR). Regarding Regulation 10(d) violation, it was held that the appellants, being customs brokers (CB), neither had contact with the exporter nor informed the delay in export consignment, but they were not responsible for the mis-declaration of goods as 'Kraft paper' instead of prohibited 'Red Sanders' in the shipping bill filed online by another CB. As for Regulation 10(n) violation, the allegation of not conducting proper KYC verification of the exporter was rejected, as the appellants had initially obtained KYC documents and later transferred the consignment to another CB in Pune. The Delhi High Court had held that a CB is not an expert to identify mis-declaration of goods. Since the appellants were not handling the export consignment, they cannot be held responsible for violating Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The impugned order revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as it was contrary to facts and unsustainable in law.
The appeal challenges the revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed for alleged violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR). Regarding Regulation 10(d) violation, it was held that the appellants, being customs brokers (CB), neither had contact with the exporter nor informed the delay in export consignment, but they were not responsible for the mis-declaration of goods as 'Kraft paper' instead of prohibited 'Red Sanders' in the shipping bill filed online by another CB. As for Regulation 10(n) violation, the allegation of not conducting proper KYC verification of the exporter was rejected, as the appellants had initially obtained KYC documents and later transferred the consignment to another CB in Pune. The Delhi High Court had held that a CB is not an expert to identify mis-declaration of goods. Since the appellants were not handling the export consignment, they cannot be held responsible for violating Regulations 10(d) and 10(n). The impugned order revoking the CB license, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal as it was contrary to facts and unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
