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 quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
