Customs valuation and import permissibility conflict resolved: accepted enhancement of transaction value removes liability for confiscation and penalt...
Failure to conduct enquiries which ought to have been made rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial under Explanation 2 to section 263: the tribunal held the AO should have examined prior-year treatment and available facts when assessing year end provisions, and its omission vitiated the assessment. Similarly, absence of year specific enquiry into dealership agreements, incentive schemes and nature of payments (commission) defeated any valid application of section 194H and consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). No verification was carried out for capitalised jigs, fixtures, dies and moulds; these verification failures collectively justified revision under section 263 and dismissal of the appeal.
Failure to conduct enquiries which ought to have been made rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial under Explanation 2 to section 263: the tribunal held the AO should have examined prior-year treatment and available facts when assessing year end provisions, and its omission vitiated the assessment. Similarly, absence of year specific enquiry into dealership agreements, incentive schemes and nature of payments (commission) defeated any valid application of section 194H and consequent disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). No verification was carried out for capitalised jigs, fixtures, dies and moulds; these verification failures collectively justified revision under section 263 and dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
