Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
Modified returns after business reorganisation must be assessed within pending proceedings, barring parallel scrutiny and consequential transfer prici...
Turnover mismatches under percentage-completion accounting cannot alone establish suppressed income where customer advances remain recorded as liabili...
Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) case involving valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value. The tribunal held that when the imported goods were numerous, only a few items were referenced without considering the importer's submissions. The grounds for value enhancement were not communicated to the importer, violating natural justice principles. The tribunal observed that the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, regarding transaction value for imports by related persons, were not properly applied. The original authority failed to examine the values against identical or similar items imported by independent buyers from the same supplier or other contemporaneous imports. The lower appellate authority's order setting aside the original order without determining the appropriate values created a vacuum. The case was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the issue afresh, adhering to natural justice principles and examining all relevant factors within three months.
Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) case involving valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value. The tribunal held that when the imported goods were numerous, only a few items were referenced without considering the importer's submissions. The grounds for value enhancement were not communicated to the importer, violating natural justice principles. The tribunal observed that the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, regarding transaction value for imports by related persons, were not properly applied. The original authority failed to examine the values against identical or similar items imported by independent buyers from the same supplier or other contemporaneous imports. The lower appellate authority's order setting aside the original order without determining the appropriate values created a vacuum. The case was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the issue afresh, adhering to natural justice principles and examining all relevant factors within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
