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...
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
