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...
Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 was challenged as ultra-vires the IGST Act and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution, even for imports on FOB basis. The court held that IGST u/s 5(1) is leviable on the value determined u/s 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, at the point when customs duties are levied u/s 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The value includes cost, freight, and insurance at the place of importation. Therefore, whether the transaction is CIF or FOB, IGST is payable on the value, including freight, cost, and insurance. However, following Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments, when the notification itself is struck down, IGST cannot be insisted upon for ocean freight in FOB transactions. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Entry No. 10 of Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 was challenged as ultra-vires the IGST Act and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution, even for imports on FOB basis. The court held that IGST u/s 5(1) is leviable on the value determined u/s 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, at the point when customs duties are levied u/s 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The value includes cost, freight, and insurance at the place of importation. Therefore, whether the transaction is CIF or FOB, IGST is payable on the value, including freight, cost, and insurance. However, following Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments, when the notification itself is struck down, IGST cannot be insisted upon for ocean freight in FOB transactions. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
