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 appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of their Halol unit due to an error in the ERP system meant for all group units. The issue pertains to determining the date for computing the one-year time limit u/s 11B for filing a refund application - whether it should be the initial filing date or the subsequent re-filing date after the department returned the initial application. The Tribunal held that since the appellant initially filed the refund claim within one year, the date of first filing should be considered, rendering the refund application not time-barred. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Auro Pumps Private Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the duty paid in excess is refundable. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand matters based on amendments to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of their Halol unit due to an error in the ERP system meant for all group units. The issue pertains to determining the date for computing the one-year time limit u/s 11B for filing a refund application - whether it should be the initial filing date or the subsequent re-filing date after the department returned the initial application. The Tribunal held that since the appellant initially filed the refund claim within one year, the date of first filing should be considered, rendering the refund application not time-barred. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Auro Pumps Private Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the duty paid in excess is refundable. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand matters based on amendments to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
