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 held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
CESTAT held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
