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...
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
