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 Court held that time spent bona fide pursuing GST appellate relief before a wrong forum could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and that this question was distinct from condonation under Section 5. It distinguished authorities on Section 5 as dealing with self-contained special limitation schemes, not exclusion of time under Section 14. Applying the principle in Prakash Medical Stores, the Court found the petitioner had genuinely pursued the appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur, and that period could not be ignored in computing limitation. The order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
The Court held that time spent bona fide pursuing GST appellate relief before a wrong forum could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and that this question was distinct from condonation under Section 5. It distinguished authorities on Section 5 as dealing with self-contained special limitation schemes, not exclusion of time under Section 14. Applying the principle in Prakash Medical Stores, the Court found the petitioner had genuinely pursued the appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur, and that period could not be ignored in computing limitation. The order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
