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 adjudicated a gold smuggling case involving alleged abetment under Customs Act Sections 112(a) and 112(b). The tribunal found the appellant orchestrated gold smuggling through two carriers with limited financial means. Key evidence included carriers' inconsistent statements, inability to prove legitimate gold purchase, and appellant's non-cooperation during investigation. The tribunal determined the appellant was the mastermind, having funded carriers' travel and accommodation. Despite counsel's arguments challenging oral statements' evidentiary value, the tribunal upheld seizure and confiscation as lawful. The appellant's failure to appear before customs authorities and carriers' inability to substantiate gold acquisition source led to dismissal of the appeal, confirming penalties under specified statutory provisions.
CESTAT adjudicated a gold smuggling case involving alleged abetment under Customs Act Sections 112(a) and 112(b). The tribunal found the appellant orchestrated gold smuggling through two carriers with limited financial means. Key evidence included carriers' inconsistent statements, inability to prove legitimate gold purchase, and appellant's non-cooperation during investigation. The tribunal determined the appellant was the mastermind, having funded carriers' travel and accommodation. Despite counsel's arguments challenging oral statements' evidentiary value, the tribunal upheld seizure and confiscation as lawful. The appellant's failure to appear before customs authorities and carriers' inability to substantiate gold acquisition source led to dismissal of the appeal, confirming penalties under specified statutory provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
