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...
Customs duty was not payable on supplies alleged to have been made to an SEZ unit for authorised operations, because the statutory SEZ scheme overrode the demand and the show cause notice did not allege use outside authorised operations. The Tribunal followed the SEZ-based exemption reasoning in the cited precedent and held the duty demand to be without authority of law; interest also failed because it depended on the same unsustainable demand. Penalty under section 114 was set aside because the alleged evasion vanished once no duty was legally payable. Penalty under section 114AA was also set aside because the notice did not propose that penalty, making its confirmation beyond the show cause notice.
Customs duty was not payable on supplies alleged to have been made to an SEZ unit for authorised operations, because the statutory SEZ scheme overrode the demand and the show cause notice did not allege use outside authorised operations. The Tribunal followed the SEZ-based exemption reasoning in the cited precedent and held the duty demand to be without authority of law; interest also failed because it depended on the same unsustainable demand. Penalty under section 114 was set aside because the alleged evasion vanished once no duty was legally payable. Penalty under section 114AA was also set aside because the notice did not propose that penalty, making its confirmation beyond the show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
