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...
Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.
Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
