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...
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
