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 appellants, a customs warehousing station, faced a fire incident resulting in the loss of certain goods. The customs duty amount on the lost goods was paid by the appellants. However, the proceedings aimed to recover interest and penalty on the duty amount under the Warehousing (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulation 2016. The key points are: destruction/loss due to fire cannot be treated as removal u/ss 71 and 73A of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no illicit physical removal. Regulation 4(c) of the Customs Warehousing Regulation, 2016, requiring an undertaking from the warehouse keeper, is not applicable as the Commissioner of Customs did not incur any liability. Section 73A applies only when goods are physically removed improperly, not in cases of loss due to fire or natural causes. Hence, the provisions of Section 73A and Regulation 4 cannot be invoked to recover duty, interest, or impose penalties in cases of loss due to fire within a bonded warehouse. The impugned order demanding interest and penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The appellants, a customs warehousing station, faced a fire incident resulting in the loss of certain goods. The customs duty amount on the lost goods was paid by the appellants. However, the proceedings aimed to recover interest and penalty on the duty amount under the Warehousing (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulation 2016. The key points are: destruction/loss due to fire cannot be treated as removal u/ss 71 and 73A of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no illicit physical removal. Regulation 4(c) of the Customs Warehousing Regulation, 2016, requiring an undertaking from the warehouse keeper, is not applicable as the Commissioner of Customs did not incur any liability. Section 73A applies only when goods are physically removed improperly, not in cases of loss due to fire or natural causes. Hence, the provisions of Section 73A and Regulation 4 cannot be invoked to recover duty, interest, or impose penalties in cases of loss due to fire within a bonded warehouse. The impugned order demanding interest and penalty was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
