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...
Interpretation of the phrase "reason to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, which is a crucial safeguard for authorizing officers to conduct searches. The court examined the legal principles governing "reason to believe," emphasizing that it cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, and must be based on material evidence. The officer must independently apply their mind and not merely reproduce statutory words mechanically. The reasons must be self-explanatory and cannot be supported by extraneous material. In the present case, the suspected opinion of local traders that the seized dried areca nuts were of foreign origin was deemed unreliable and unacceptable, as their origin could not be conclusively determined by mere visual inspection. The court held that the seizure memo lacked valid reasons and set it aside, discharging the bank guarantee and ordering the release of the seized goods within three months.
Interpretation of the phrase "reason to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, which is a crucial safeguard for authorizing officers to conduct searches. The court examined the legal principles governing "reason to believe," emphasizing that it cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical, and must be based on material evidence. The officer must independently apply their mind and not merely reproduce statutory words mechanically. The reasons must be self-explanatory and cannot be supported by extraneous material. In the present case, the suspected opinion of local traders that the seized dried areca nuts were of foreign origin was deemed unreliable and unacceptable, as their origin could not be conclusively determined by mere visual inspection. The court held that the seizure memo lacked valid reasons and set it aside, discharging the bank guarantee and ordering the release of the seized goods within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.