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...
CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
