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...
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
