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...
HC held that cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application were vitiated by breach of natural justice. The authority had invited and received a reply but rejected it by a cryptic order without addressing the defence or recording reasons, making the decision arbitrary and non-speaking. The cancellation and revocation notices were also defective because the hearing date was fixed before expiry of the time granted to reply, denying a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Although the general rule favours the statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available where the impugned orders were patently illegal, arbitrary, or passed without fair hearing. The impugned orders were set aside and the writ petition was entertained.
HC held that cancellation of GST registration and rejection of the revocation application were vitiated by breach of natural justice. The authority had invited and received a reply but rejected it by a cryptic order without addressing the defence or recording reasons, making the decision arbitrary and non-speaking. The cancellation and revocation notices were also defective because the hearing date was fixed before expiry of the time granted to reply, denying a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Although the general rule favours the statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remained available where the impugned orders were patently illegal, arbitrary, or passed without fair hearing. The impugned orders were set aside and the writ petition was entertained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
