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...
Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be recovered on the basis of alleged post-import alteration of retail sale price. The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the importer itself misdeclared or later manipulated the RSP, and rejected the attempt to treat the importer and distributor as one entity because the distributor was a separate legal person and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. It also held that customs law contained no machinery to redetermine RSP for reassessment of additional duty, and that any post-import relabelling would, at most, raise deemed manufacture consequences under central excise law. The demand, confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.
Differential CVD on imported mobile phones could not be recovered on the basis of alleged post-import alteration of retail sale price. The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the importer itself misdeclared or later manipulated the RSP, and rejected the attempt to treat the importer and distributor as one entity because the distributor was a separate legal person and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil. It also held that customs law contained no machinery to redetermine RSP for reassessment of additional duty, and that any post-import relabelling would, at most, raise deemed manufacture consequences under central excise law. The demand, confiscation and penalties were therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
