Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
Regarding the scope of Section 92BA(i) as omitted, the Tribunal held that the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the specified domestic transaction mentioned in clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Act is invalid. This is because the said provision has been omitted, and any addition made concerning the same needs to be deleted. As per the Karnataka High Court's decision in M/s. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd., when clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017, it is considered as if it never existed. Consequently, the Assessing Officer's decision u/s 92BA and the reference made to the TPO order u/s 92CA are invalid and unlawful. Regarding Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, it was held that it should be restricted only to transactions between Associated Enterprises (AEs). As per the Bombay High Court's decision in Phoenix Mecvano (India)(P.) Ltd., under Chapter X of the Act, re-determination of consideration is to be done only concerning income arising from international transactions on determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The adjustment is mandated only for international transactions and not transactions with independent unrelated third parties, as there is no tax avoidance issue requiring adjustment.
Regarding the scope of Section 92BA(i) as omitted, the Tribunal held that the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the specified domestic transaction mentioned in clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Act is invalid. This is because the said provision has been omitted, and any addition made concerning the same needs to be deleted. As per the Karnataka High Court's decision in M/s. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd., when clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.07.2017, it is considered as if it never existed. Consequently, the Assessing Officer's decision u/s 92BA and the reference made to the TPO order u/s 92CA are invalid and unlawful. Regarding Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, it was held that it should be restricted only to transactions between Associated Enterprises (AEs). As per the Bombay High Court's decision in Phoenix Mecvano (India)(P.) Ltd., under Chapter X of the Act, re-determination of consideration is to be done only concerning income arising from international transactions on determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The adjustment is mandated only for international transactions and not transactions with independent unrelated third parties, as there is no tax avoidance issue requiring adjustment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
