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...
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit paid towards Service Tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism during April 2016 to June 2017 period is admissible in cash u/s 142(3) after the expiry of the transitional provision. The non-obstante clause in the pre-existing law permitted cash refund of eligible CENVAT credit, even though no express provision existed. Invoking the 'Doctrine of Necessity', the Appellant is entitled to the claimed refund with applicable interest. The Commissioner's order denying cash refund is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. The Tribunal's precedents and the Madras High Court judgment support granting cash refund as a dire necessity.
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit paid towards Service Tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism during April 2016 to June 2017 period is admissible in cash u/s 142(3) after the expiry of the transitional provision. The non-obstante clause in the pre-existing law permitted cash refund of eligible CENVAT credit, even though no express provision existed. Invoking the 'Doctrine of Necessity', the Appellant is entitled to the claimed refund with applicable interest. The Commissioner's order denying cash refund is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. The Tribunal's precedents and the Madras High Court judgment support granting cash refund as a dire necessity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
