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...
Non-submission of country-of-origin certificate resulted in denial of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty under ASEAN FTA Preferential Tariff Agreement for steaming (non-coking) coal in bulk. Alteration/correction in the certificate did not satisfy provisions of operational certification procedures. Denying substantial benefits for technical errors would be unjust. Revenue doubted authenticity of certificate due to correction and date discrepancy, but provided no concrete proof. Procedure to check doubts regarding certificate was not followed. Impugned order set aside, appeals allowed by Appellate Tribunal.
Non-submission of country-of-origin certificate resulted in denial of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty under ASEAN FTA Preferential Tariff Agreement for steaming (non-coking) coal in bulk. Alteration/correction in the certificate did not satisfy provisions of operational certification procedures. Denying substantial benefits for technical errors would be unjust. Revenue doubted authenticity of certificate due to correction and date discrepancy, but provided no concrete proof. Procedure to check doubts regarding certificate was not followed. Impugned order set aside, appeals allowed by Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.