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 export consignments comprising mixed Iron Ore fines and low-percentage lumps could not be classified as Iron Ore lumps for levy of higher export duty, as lumps were not the predominant component. The Tribunal further ruled that export duty and value must be determined on the basis of Fe content and moisture percentage ascertained at the discharge port in terms of the export contracts, and that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without strictly following the Customs Valuation Rules and affording the exporters due opportunity. However, CESTAT upheld denial of cum-duty benefit, holding FOB value as the transaction value for export duty from 01.01.2009. Departmental appeals were dismissed; exporters' appeals were allowed to the above extent.
CESTAT held that export consignments comprising mixed Iron Ore fines and low-percentage lumps could not be classified as Iron Ore lumps for levy of higher export duty, as lumps were not the predominant component. The Tribunal further ruled that export duty and value must be determined on the basis of Fe content and moisture percentage ascertained at the discharge port in terms of the export contracts, and that the declared transaction value could not be rejected without strictly following the Customs Valuation Rules and affording the exporters due opportunity. However, CESTAT upheld denial of cum-duty benefit, holding FOB value as the transaction value for export duty from 01.01.2009. Departmental appeals were dismissed; exporters' appeals were allowed to the above extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
