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...
Transmission shafts, gears, gear boxes and allied machine parts manufactured for agricultural machinery were classifiable under Heading 8483, because Note 2(a) to Section XVI required goods specifically covered by a Chapter 84 heading to be classified there even if they were designed for a particular machine. The Tribunal also accepted that amounts reversed under Rule 6(3) on a bona fide exemption belief had to be adjusted against any duty liability, and cum-duty benefit was admissible where no duty was separately collected. The demand, however, was held time-barred: the dispute turned on tariff interpretation, suppression with intent to evade was not proved, and the extended period could not be invoked.
Transmission shafts, gears, gear boxes and allied machine parts manufactured for agricultural machinery were classifiable under Heading 8483, because Note 2(a) to Section XVI required goods specifically covered by a Chapter 84 heading to be classified there even if they were designed for a particular machine. The Tribunal also accepted that amounts reversed under Rule 6(3) on a bona fide exemption belief had to be adjusted against any duty liability, and cum-duty benefit was admissible where no duty was separately collected. The demand, however, was held time-barred: the dispute turned on tariff interpretation, suppression with intent to evade was not proved, and the extended period could not be invoked.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
