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...
Receipts from a composite activity involving both sale of goods and supply of services could not be taxed as pure service income without first classifying the activity as works contract and considering the composition scheme; the demand on the full receipt value was therefore unsustainable. The appellant was also found eligible for the small service provider threshold exemption for the relevant year, supporting a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. In that position, suppression with intent to evade was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand, interest and penalties were barred by limitation.
Receipts from a composite activity involving both sale of goods and supply of services could not be taxed as pure service income without first classifying the activity as works contract and considering the composition scheme; the demand on the full receipt value was therefore unsustainable. The appellant was also found eligible for the small service provider threshold exemption for the relevant year, supporting a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. In that position, suppression with intent to evade was not established, the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and the demand, interest and penalties were barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.