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 officers of DRI, including the Additional Director, are "proper officers" under s.28 of the Customs Act and thus competent to issue SCN, in line with the binding LB decision of the SC. However, on merits, CESTAT found that Appellant No. 1 had purchased the Mercedes car bona fide and Appellant No. 2 had only facilitated the purchase, without any collusion in mis-declaration, undervaluation, or violation of customs provisions. As they were not the importers and did not seek redemption under s.125, no duty demand or penal consequence could be fastened upon them. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed in full.
CESTAT held that officers of DRI, including the Additional Director, are "proper officers" under s.28 of the Customs Act and thus competent to issue SCN, in line with the binding LB decision of the SC. However, on merits, CESTAT found that Appellant No. 1 had purchased the Mercedes car bona fide and Appellant No. 2 had only facilitated the purchase, without any collusion in mis-declaration, undervaluation, or violation of customs provisions. As they were not the importers and did not seek redemption under s.125, no duty demand or penal consequence could be fastened upon them. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
