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 imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) license issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). The department alleged mis-declaration of the year of manufacture to avail undue benefits under the TUF (Technology Upgradation Fund) Scheme. However, the Tribunal held that the Bill of Entry did not mention any year of manufacture, hence there was no mis-declaration. The appellant had not imported under TUF but only under EPCG which did not restrict the year of manufacture. The appellant did not obtain any undue TUF benefits. The exemption notification did not place any restriction on the year of manufacture for EPCG imports. The Commissioner of Customs cannot modify or add conditions to the EPCG license issued by DGFT. Alleged attempts to avail ineligible benefits from other ministries cannot be grounds for customs duty demand, confiscation or penalties under the Customs Act. The imported goods were not liable for confiscation u/ss 111(m) and 111(o) as the conditions were fulfilled. The penalty u/s 114A was also unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
