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 allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
