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 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 114A can only be imposed when duty is payable. In this case, the duty was payable by M/s. BGH Exim Ltd (seller of goods), which had already been paid and settled under the Settlement Commission. Furthermore, the demand in the show cause notice proposing joint and several liability for duty on M/s. BGH Exim Ltd and the appellants was legally untenable, as duty cannot be demanded jointly and severally. Since the duty was confirmed only against M/s. BGH Exim Ltd, there was no reason to impose penalty u/s 114A on the appellants.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 114A can only be imposed when duty is payable. In this case, the duty was payable by M/s. BGH Exim Ltd (seller of goods), which had already been paid and settled under the Settlement Commission. Furthermore, the demand in the show cause notice proposing joint and several liability for duty on M/s. BGH Exim Ltd and the appellants was legally untenable, as duty cannot be demanded jointly and severally. Since the duty was confirmed only against M/s. BGH Exim Ltd, there was no reason to impose penalty u/s 114A on the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
