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...
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
