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 ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
