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...
Availability of an alternative appeal under Section 128 did not bar writ interference where the impugned penalty order suffered from breach of natural justice and absence of a foundational jurisdictional finding. The Court held that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not rest on a mere assumption that non-physical verification by a customs broker established culpability; there had to be a factual finding of commission or abetment of an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. It further held that binding precedents cited by the petitioner were not considered or distinguished, which vitiated the order. The penalty was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice.
Availability of an alternative appeal under Section 128 did not bar writ interference where the impugned penalty order suffered from breach of natural justice and absence of a foundational jurisdictional finding. The Court held that penalty under Section 114(iii) could not rest on a mere assumption that non-physical verification by a customs broker established culpability; there had to be a factual finding of commission or abetment of an act rendering goods liable to confiscation. It further held that binding precedents cited by the petitioner were not considered or distinguished, which vitiated the order. The penalty was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
