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 examined the seizure of 3998.83 grams of gold from two individuals traveling by bus, determining the legality of the customs action. The tribunal found the department failed to establish reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Critical procedural deficiencies were identified, including non-compliance with Section 138B and lack of concrete evidence proving smuggling. The absence of foreign markings on gold and failure to substantiate smuggling claims led the tribunal to conclude that the seizure was unsustainable. The burden of proof under Section 123 was not effectively discharged by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the seizure and potential penalties.
CESTAT examined the seizure of 3998.83 grams of gold from two individuals traveling by bus, determining the legality of the customs action. The tribunal found the department failed to establish reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Critical procedural deficiencies were identified, including non-compliance with Section 138B and lack of concrete evidence proving smuggling. The absence of foreign markings on gold and failure to substantiate smuggling claims led the tribunal to conclude that the seizure was unsustainable. The burden of proof under Section 123 was not effectively discharged by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the seizure and potential penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
