Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
The petitioner brought a consignment of jewelry from Mumbai to Cochin without a valid Form 8FA declaration as required under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. The Commercial Tax Authorities assumed the petitioner intended to evade tax by clandestinely selling the consignment within Kerala. However, it was admitted that the entire consignment was taken back to Mumbai via Coimbatore without any sale within Kerala. Although the authorities were initially justified in presuming tax evasion, the subsequent events showed no actual sale or tax evasion occurred within Kerala. Therefore, a lenient view regarding the imposition of penalty on the petitioner is warranted.
The petitioner brought a consignment of jewelry from Mumbai to Cochin without a valid Form 8FA declaration as required under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules. The Commercial Tax Authorities assumed the petitioner intended to evade tax by clandestinely selling the consignment within Kerala. However, it was admitted that the entire consignment was taken back to Mumbai via Coimbatore without any sale within Kerala. Although the authorities were initially justified in presuming tax evasion, the subsequent events showed no actual sale or tax evasion occurred within Kerala. Therefore, a lenient view regarding the imposition of penalty on the petitioner is warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
