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...
A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material.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A retracted statement is not excluded merely because it is later withdrawn; it remains admissible if shown to be voluntary, the retraction is assessed on its own merits, and the reliance is supported by independent, cogent material.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.