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...
Reliance on inquiry statements without compliance with the cross-examination safeguard under Section 138B, coupled with weak corroboration, was held insufficient to sustain penalty for alleged smuggling facilitation. The Tribunal found that the statements used against the appellants were untested, the Angadiya letters were not proved as reliable records, and the Department failed to connect the alleged acts with passport data, duty rosters, call records, or proper identification. On the standard of preponderance of probability, conscious involvement or facilitation of goods liable to confiscation was not established, so the penalties under Section 112(b) against both appellants were set aside.
Reliance on inquiry statements without compliance with the cross-examination safeguard under Section 138B, coupled with weak corroboration, was held insufficient to sustain penalty for alleged smuggling facilitation. The Tribunal found that the statements used against the appellants were untested, the Angadiya letters were not proved as reliable records, and the Department failed to connect the alleged acts with passport data, duty rosters, call records, or proper identification. On the standard of preponderance of probability, conscious involvement or facilitation of goods liable to confiscation was not established, so the penalties under Section 112(b) against both appellants were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
