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 High Court dismissed the petition challenging the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crore for filing an appeal before the CESTAT u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that it lacked discretion to grant a waiver or reduction in the pre-deposit amount, as it would be contrary to the legislative intent. The petitioner was directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The court observed that while considering a waiver, it must examine if the petitioner has a prima facie case likely to succeed, indicating no gross injustice, excessive demand contrary to facts, or perverse orders, coupled with blameless conduct. However, after examining the facts, the court found no merit to grant a waiver and dismissed the petition.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 10 crore for filing an appeal before the CESTAT u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that it lacked discretion to grant a waiver or reduction in the pre-deposit amount, as it would be contrary to the legislative intent. The petitioner was directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. The court observed that while considering a waiver, it must examine if the petitioner has a prima facie case likely to succeed, indicating no gross injustice, excessive demand contrary to facts, or perverse orders, coupled with blameless conduct. However, after examining the facts, the court found no merit to grant a waiver and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
