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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
