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...
The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed.
The High Court dealt with GST recovery and appellate limitation issues arising from a rectified demand order. It held that an appeal dismissed only on delay was vitiated because the appellate authority had not examined whether time spent prosecuting a writ petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; the dismissal was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on that limited point, with merits and limitation left open. It also held that once the statutory appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is made, recovery of the balance demand remains stayed under Section 107(7), so the recovery order could not stand and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
