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...
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Under FEMA, pre-deposit of penalty is the rule and waiver is an exception available only on proof of undue hardship, with protective conditions for recovery. The Tribunal had already exercised that discretion by granting substantial relief, and the High Court found no clear prima facie case for total waiver, as the petitioners' own case showed awareness that the remittances attracted FEMA. It also held that no perversity, unreasonableness or non-application of mind was shown in the hardship assessment, and that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate the Tribunal's discretion. The Tribunal's order was therefore upheld in principle, with only the immediate cash pre-deposit reduced to 5% and the balance to be secured by bank guarantee or surety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
