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...
HC quashed detention order and penalty imposed due to minor E-way bill discrepancy where goods were transported for exhibition display. Genuine delivery challans under Section 55(1) were issued for both dispatch and return, with only technical error in listing dispatch location as Ghaziabad instead of New Delhi. No evidence of tax evasion intent was established by authorities. Court found proceedings unjustified where goods were accompanied by legitimate documentation, despite technical discrepancy. Following precedent requiring proof of tax evasion intent for penalty imposition, and recognizing substantial compliance with documentation requirements, petition was allowed and proceedings invalidated.
HC quashed detention order and penalty imposed due to minor E-way bill discrepancy where goods were transported for exhibition display. Genuine delivery challans under Section 55(1) were issued for both dispatch and return, with only technical error in listing dispatch location as Ghaziabad instead of New Delhi. No evidence of tax evasion intent was established by authorities. Court found proceedings unjustified where goods were accompanied by legitimate documentation, despite technical discrepancy. Following precedent requiring proof of tax evasion intent for penalty imposition, and recognizing substantial compliance with documentation requirements, petition was allowed and proceedings invalidated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.