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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
