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...
CESTAT upheld classification of the imported goods as crystalline limestone rather than marble, accepting the Geological Survey of India report as a reliable technical opinion and holding that dictionary meanings could not override expert scientific evidence. It distinguished prior marble decisions on their facts and found that the advance licence and Notification No. 203/92 exemption, which applied to marble, was correctly denied. The Tribunal also found clear misdeclaration in both description and quantity, since the goods were not as declared and excess quantity was detected on first check. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore justified and affirmed.
CESTAT upheld classification of the imported goods as crystalline limestone rather than marble, accepting the Geological Survey of India report as a reliable technical opinion and holding that dictionary meanings could not override expert scientific evidence. It distinguished prior marble decisions on their facts and found that the advance licence and Notification No. 203/92 exemption, which applied to marble, was correctly denied. The Tribunal also found clear misdeclaration in both description and quantity, since the goods were not as declared and excess quantity was detected on first check. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore justified and affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
