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...
Refund of duty paid under protest was held to arise only after the underlying dispute on exemption or classification is finally settled in the assessee's own case. Applying Dena Snuff, the Tribunal found that the decisive question was whether a legally enforceable cause of action for refund existed on the date of the application, not the later success on exemption entitlement. Because the eligibility dispute had not been finally decided when the refund was filed, the claim was premature and correctly rejected. The Tribunal also noted that a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act requires an existing cause of action and that protective demands issued without one are not sustainable.
Refund of duty paid under protest was held to arise only after the underlying dispute on exemption or classification is finally settled in the assessee's own case. Applying Dena Snuff, the Tribunal found that the decisive question was whether a legally enforceable cause of action for refund existed on the date of the application, not the later success on exemption entitlement. Because the eligibility dispute had not been finally decided when the refund was filed, the claim was premature and correctly rejected. The Tribunal also noted that a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act requires an existing cause of action and that protective demands issued without one are not sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
