Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material. The Tribunal found no proof of coercion, accepted the statements recorded under FEMA as admissible, and held that liability did not rest on those statements alone. Seized notebooks, diaries, loose sheets, cash, and corroborating statements from others independently linked both appellants to the transaction, and the finding of contravention of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of FEMA was upheld. The penalties were reduced, with the second appellant's pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.