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...
Confiscation of declared non-infringing branded shoes was unsustainable where the adjudication order gave no reasons and the classification change did not affect duty liability; the related confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. Absolute confiscation of undeclared counterfeit branded shoes was upheld because the goods were found IPR-infringing and prohibited, even though the right holder reports should have been shared with the importer; the infringement was otherwise not disputed. Penalty was reduced substantially because mala fides were not established and departmental delays caused prejudice, so only a nominal penalty was warranted.
Confiscation of declared non-infringing branded shoes was unsustainable where the adjudication order gave no reasons and the classification change did not affect duty liability; the related confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. Absolute confiscation of undeclared counterfeit branded shoes was upheld because the goods were found IPR-infringing and prohibited, even though the right holder reports should have been shared with the importer; the infringement was otherwise not disputed. Penalty was reduced substantially because mala fides were not established and departmental delays caused prejudice, so only a nominal penalty was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.