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...
Penalty under Section 125 of the GST Act could not be imposed separately under CGST and SGST beyond the statutory maximum for the same contravention. The High Court held that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under CGST plus a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST was not justified where the provision prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. The original penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential appellate order also could not stand. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Penalty under Section 125 of the GST Act could not be imposed separately under CGST and SGST beyond the statutory maximum for the same contravention. The High Court held that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under CGST plus a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST was not justified where the provision prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. The original penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential appellate order also could not stand. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
