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...
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
