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 analyzed a case involving seizure of 3499.750gm of gold allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish smuggling, noting lack of reasonable belief under Section 110 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The department failed to provide cogent proof of foreign origin or smuggling. Procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 138B and principles of natural justice, further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation and the involved parties were not subject to penalties.
CESTAT analyzed a case involving seizure of 3499.750gm of gold allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish smuggling, noting lack of reasonable belief under Section 110 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The department failed to provide cogent proof of foreign origin or smuggling. Procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 138B and principles of natural justice, further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation and the involved parties were not subject to penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.