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 imported Clear Float Glass is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as per Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, rather than under CTH 7005 2990 as reclassified by the Department. The issue of classification is no longer res integra, as it has been elaborately dealt with in the case of M/S. BAGRECHA ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA. The Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, as the issue was known to the revenue, and the assessments underwent provisional assessment and subsequent finalization for the same product. Invoking the extended period for demand of duty or imposition of mandatory penalty is not sustainable, as the appellant did not suppress or misdeclare any facts. The imported Clear Float Glass is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, being classifiable under CTH 7005 1090. The impugned Order-in-Original is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
The imported Clear Float Glass is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as per Chapter Note 2(c) to Chapter 70, rather than under CTH 7005 2990 as reclassified by the Department. The issue of classification is no longer res integra, as it has been elaborately dealt with in the case of M/S. BAGRECHA ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA. The Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, as the issue was known to the revenue, and the assessments underwent provisional assessment and subsequent finalization for the same product. Invoking the extended period for demand of duty or imposition of mandatory penalty is not sustainable, as the appellant did not suppress or misdeclare any facts. The imported Clear Float Glass is eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, being classifiable under CTH 7005 1090. The impugned Order-in-Original is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
