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 appellant's appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, and the penalty imposed u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was set aside. It was held that when an assessee admits and discharges the service tax liability along with interest before the issuance of a show cause notice, it demonstrates a reasonable cause for non-payment, and the case stands closed u/s 73(3) of the Act. Since the appellant recorded the entire transaction in their books and paid the tax liability and interest without any mala fide intention, invoking Sections 73(3) and 80 of the Act, the penalty was rightly set aside.
The appellant's appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, and the penalty imposed u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was set aside. It was held that when an assessee admits and discharges the service tax liability along with interest before the issuance of a show cause notice, it demonstrates a reasonable cause for non-payment, and the case stands closed u/s 73(3) of the Act. Since the appellant recorded the entire transaction in their books and paid the tax liability and interest without any mala fide intention, invoking Sections 73(3) and 80 of the Act, the penalty was rightly set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.