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...
GST demand limitation under Section 73 runs from the due date for the annual return; extensions of those due dates change its commencement, and pandemic-period exclusion must be applied when calculating the three-year period. A notice issued after the resulting deadline cannot be sustained under the ordinary limitation. Recourse to Section 74's five-year period requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, based on disclosed foundational facts, that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the tax shortfall or excess input tax credit. Audit objections and bare statutory assertions are insufficient. The show-cause notice and consequential order were set aside, with liberty for fresh Section 74 proceedings within the applicable extended limitation.
GST demand limitation under Section 73 runs from the due date for the annual return; extensions of those due dates change its commencement, and pandemic-period exclusion must be applied when calculating the three-year period. A notice issued after the resulting deadline cannot be sustained under the ordinary limitation. Recourse to Section 74's five-year period requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, based on disclosed foundational facts, that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the tax shortfall or excess input tax credit. Audit objections and bare statutory assertions are insufficient. The show-cause notice and consequential order were set aside, with liberty for fresh Section 74 proceedings within the applicable extended limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.