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 CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
The CESTAT held that the order of suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker license was passed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period, violating Regulation 20(2) of CBLR 2013. However, the legality of the suspension order could not be decided as the challenged order was the revocation dated 12.02.2015. The gravity of the alleged offense did not warrant revocation, which is disproportionate punishment. The appellant must have suffered enough financially, acting as a deterrent. Permanent revocation would adversely impact the appellant's family and employees. The appeal was partly allowed, ordering re-issuance of the Customs Broker License subject to procedural requirements, while upholding the forfeiture of the security deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
