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...
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
