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 Tribunal held that since the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 were not followed, the goods cannot be considered prohibited, and consequently, cannot be absolutely confiscated. The valuation adopted by the Revenue by taking the price of original branded goods from an e-commerce site was incorrect as the goods were counterfeit. Since the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation and the enhancement of value by the department was unacceptable, the entire penalties imposed against all the appellants were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 were not followed, the goods cannot be considered prohibited, and consequently, cannot be absolutely confiscated. The valuation adopted by the Revenue by taking the price of original branded goods from an e-commerce site was incorrect as the goods were counterfeit. Since the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation and the enhancement of value by the department was unacceptable, the entire penalties imposed against all the appellants were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.