Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Automotive radio classification treats integrated infotainment features as supplementary, placing complete and qualifying unassembled units under the ...
Separate corporate personality prevents directors from being personally liable for company deposits without a guarantee or independent legal undertaki...
Statutory appellate remedy ordinarily governs a challenge to a GST adjudication order based on denial of cross-examination of revenue officers involved in preparing a panchnama. Once relied-upon documents are supplied and panch witnesses are cross-examined, the earlier procedural defect no longer survives. The evidentiary value of witness statements, proof of the panchnama, and the factual necessity for cross-examining revenue officers concern merits for appellate review. Statutory immunity is not a sustainable reason to refuse such cross-examination, but it does not create an absolute right; necessity depends on the facts. The cross-examination issue remains open before the appellate authority, and an appeal filed within four weeks is to be entertained on merits without a limitation objection.
Statutory appellate remedy ordinarily governs a challenge to a GST adjudication order based on denial of cross-examination of revenue officers involved in preparing a panchnama. Once relied-upon documents are supplied and panch witnesses are cross-examined, the earlier procedural defect no longer survives. The evidentiary value of witness statements, proof of the panchnama, and the factual necessity for cross-examining revenue officers concern merits for appellate review. Statutory immunity is not a sustainable reason to refuse such cross-examination, but it does not create an absolute right; necessity depends on the facts. The cross-examination issue remains open before the appellate authority, and an appeal filed within four weeks is to be entertained on merits without a limitation objection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
