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 Broker licence revocation, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside because the record did not provide substantive evidence linking the broker to the impugned export shipments or showing knowledge of the alleged fraud. The Tribunal held that the Shipping Bills and other primary documents indicated the exporters themselves had filed the consignments, while the allegation depended mainly on a G-Card holder's statement. The challenge based on Regulation 17 timelines failed because the inquiry report was found to have been submitted within the prescribed period and the broker was given an opportunity to respond. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed because no witness was identified for examination.
Customs Broker licence revocation, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside because the record did not provide substantive evidence linking the broker to the impugned export shipments or showing knowledge of the alleged fraud. The Tribunal held that the Shipping Bills and other primary documents indicated the exporters themselves had filed the consignments, while the allegation depended mainly on a G-Card holder's statement. The challenge based on Regulation 17 timelines failed because the inquiry report was found to have been submitted within the prescribed period and the broker was given an opportunity to respond. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed because no witness was identified for examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
