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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
