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...
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
