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...
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
