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 proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
In GST proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
