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...
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
