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...
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.