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...
In GST appeal limitation, the HC held that where the statute requires filing within three months from communication of the order, the date of communication must be excluded and limitation runs from the next day; "month" means a calendar month. On that computation, the appeal fell within the condonable period, so the appellate authority erred in treating it as time-barred. The HC also found that the authority failed to consider the electronically filed reply to the show cause notice on limitation, which deprived the petitioner of fair consideration and amounted to an apparent error on the record. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
In GST appeal limitation, the HC held that where the statute requires filing within three months from communication of the order, the date of communication must be excluded and limitation runs from the next day; "month" means a calendar month. On that computation, the appeal fell within the condonable period, so the appellate authority erred in treating it as time-barred. The HC also found that the authority failed to consider the electronically filed reply to the show cause notice on limitation, which deprived the petitioner of fair consideration and amounted to an apparent error on the record. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.