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...
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Refund of redemption fine paid only because of an unlawful departmental insistence was held allowable, as the Tribunal found that payment was not made under SVLDRS itself but was extracted as a precondition for processing the declaration. Relying on Gujarat High Court authority, the Tribunal held that such a demand was legally untenable and that the amount could not be denied refund on the footing that it formed part of the scheme payment. The sum was treated as a pre-deposit-like payment, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply once the claim was otherwise justified. The rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
