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 is entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund from the date after three months from the date of application till the date of sanction of refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying interest based on the explanation appended to Section 27A, which is not applicable as the refund sanction order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. As per Section 27A, the appellant is eligible for interest after three months from the date of refund application, not from the date of the refund order, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The appellant is entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund from the date after three months from the date of application till the date of sanction of refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying interest based on the explanation appended to Section 27A, which is not applicable as the refund sanction order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. As per Section 27A, the appellant is eligible for interest after three months from the date of refund application, not from the date of the refund order, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
