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 - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
