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...
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
