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...
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Grant-in-aid received under a government scheme for setting up and modernising a rice milling unit was treated as reimbursement of capital expenditure already incurred, not as consideration for any taxable service. The Tribunal found no service provider-recipient relationship, no evidence of any knowhow or intellectual property being created and transferred, and no contractual counter-obligation arising from the grant conditions. In the absence of consideration for a service, the amount was held outside service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for tax, interest and penalty was therefore set aside, following earlier decisions treating grant-in-aid or reimbursement, without anything over and above the grant, as non-taxable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.