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...
Physical and mechanical beneficiation that removes foreign matter and concentrates mineral content was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and the goods were classifiable as concentrates. Despite failure to follow CT-3 and related procedure, duty-free clearances to 100% EOUs could not be denied because the lapse arose from a bona fide belief that the goods were not dutiable, and the law did not require an impossible act. The department also failed to prove that the disputed clearances were not as such supplies, so those sales were excluded from turnover. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression, clandestine removal, and intent to evade duty were not established in an interpretational dispute, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Physical and mechanical beneficiation that removes foreign matter and concentrates mineral content was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and the goods were classifiable as concentrates. Despite failure to follow CT-3 and related procedure, duty-free clearances to 100% EOUs could not be denied because the lapse arose from a bona fide belief that the goods were not dutiable, and the law did not require an impossible act. The department also failed to prove that the disputed clearances were not as such supplies, so those sales were excluded from turnover. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression, clandestine removal, and intent to evade duty were not established in an interpretational dispute, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
