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...
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
