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 the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT held that the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
