Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.