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...
ONT/ONU home gateway units and OLTs were treated as machines for reception and transmission of data under CTI 8517 62 90, not as residual goods under CTI 8517 69 50 or 8517 69 90, because their undisputed function was to receive broadband signals through optical fibre and transmit them to subscriber devices. Exemption denial under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus and Notification No. 57/2017-Cus was remanded for fresh consideration after taking the telecom expert report into account, since the technical characterisation of the goods had not been properly examined. The extended period of limitation was not available because collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not established, and penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were set aside.
ONT/ONU home gateway units and OLTs were treated as machines for reception and transmission of data under CTI 8517 62 90, not as residual goods under CTI 8517 69 50 or 8517 69 90, because their undisputed function was to receive broadband signals through optical fibre and transmit them to subscriber devices. Exemption denial under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus and Notification No. 57/2017-Cus was remanded for fresh consideration after taking the telecom expert report into account, since the technical characterisation of the goods had not been properly examined. The extended period of limitation was not available because collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not established, and penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
