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...
Availability of a statutory appellate remedy against GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation ordinarily precludes adjudication of factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. Appeals lay against both orders; therefore, factual contentions remained open for determination by the appellate authority. Where the revocation-rejection order was undated but served on 22 August 2026, the service date was directed to be treated as the order date for pursuing the appellate remedy. The taxpayer was permitted to file appeals against both orders within two weeks, for expeditious disposal.
Availability of a statutory appellate remedy against GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation ordinarily precludes adjudication of factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. Appeals lay against both orders; therefore, factual contentions remained open for determination by the appellate authority. Where the revocation-rejection order was undated but served on 22 August 2026, the service date was directed to be treated as the order date for pursuing the appellate remedy. The taxpayer was permitted to file appeals against both orders within two weeks, for expeditious disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
