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...
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.