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...
Foundational facts supported invocation of the extended period under GST Section 74, because the notices set out detailed allegations of incorrect valuation, inadmissible credit-note adjustment and short payment of tax, backed by investigation material and prior intimation; the writ challenge was therefore rejected as the disputed factual issues were not fit for writ review. Prior audit and earlier investigation did not defeat jurisdiction, because audit under Section 65 is distinct from a pan-India DGGI investigation, and overlap alone did not invalidate notices where separate grounds of evasion were alleged. The proceedings were held maintainable and the taxpayer was directed to reply before the adjudicating authority.
Foundational facts supported invocation of the extended period under GST Section 74, because the notices set out detailed allegations of incorrect valuation, inadmissible credit-note adjustment and short payment of tax, backed by investigation material and prior intimation; the writ challenge was therefore rejected as the disputed factual issues were not fit for writ review. Prior audit and earlier investigation did not defeat jurisdiction, because audit under Section 65 is distinct from a pan-India DGGI investigation, and overlap alone did not invalidate notices where separate grounds of evasion were alleged. The proceedings were held maintainable and the taxpayer was directed to reply before the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
