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...
CESTAT determined specifications, drawings and designs supplied by Company M during request for quotations (RFQ) do not constitute additional consideration for sale under Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that for elements to qualify as consideration under Contract Act, they must be provided at promisor's desire, which wasn't the case here. The documents were merely articulation of Company M's requirements to elicit proposals, not consideration flowing from promisee to promisor. Following precedent in similar cases, CESTAT held such technical documentation supplied free of cost cannot be included in assessable value for excise duty calculation. Appeal allowed with impugned order set aside.
CESTAT determined specifications, drawings and designs supplied by Company M during request for quotations (RFQ) do not constitute additional consideration for sale under Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that for elements to qualify as consideration under Contract Act, they must be provided at promisor's desire, which wasn't the case here. The documents were merely articulation of Company M's requirements to elicit proposals, not consideration flowing from promisee to promisor. Following precedent in similar cases, CESTAT held such technical documentation supplied free of cost cannot be included in assessable value for excise duty calculation. Appeal allowed with impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
