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...
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
