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...
Foreign remittance compliance turned on whether the appellant could prove import through valid Bills of Entry linked to the impugned remittances and asserted high sea sale documents. The Tribunal found that the Bill of Entry related to the same Bill of Lading, but the handwritten notation relied on to show coverage of all three remittances was partly illegible and not shown to have been made by authorised personnel. Customs records did not establish duty on the full amount claimed, and RBI confirmed that the relevant Bills of Entry had not been submitted to the Authorised Dealer. Contravention was therefore sustained, but the penalty was reduced and the pre-deposit adjusted.
Foreign remittance compliance turned on whether the appellant could prove import through valid Bills of Entry linked to the impugned remittances and asserted high sea sale documents. The Tribunal found that the Bill of Entry related to the same Bill of Lading, but the handwritten notation relied on to show coverage of all three remittances was partly illegible and not shown to have been made by authorised personnel. Customs records did not establish duty on the full amount claimed, and RBI confirmed that the relevant Bills of Entry had not been submitted to the Authorised Dealer. Contravention was therefore sustained, but the penalty was reduced and the pre-deposit adjusted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
