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...
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
