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...
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - The High Court examined the discrepancy between the grounds cited in the show cause notice and those in the cancellation order. It found that the reasons for cancellation, invoking clause 29(2)(e) alleging fraud or misstatement, were not adequately communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, the contents of the crucial email relied upon were not disclosed to the petitioner, denying them the opportunity to refute the allegations. - The Court observed that the respondents' actions, such as scheduling a personal hearing before the petitioner had a chance to respond fully, indicated a lack of procedural fairness. This, coupled with the failure to provide essential documents and information to the petitioner, reinforced the perception of predetermined action. - Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order.
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - The High Court examined the discrepancy between the grounds cited in the show cause notice and those in the cancellation order. It found that the reasons for cancellation, invoking clause 29(2)(e) alleging fraud or misstatement, were not adequately communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, the contents of the crucial email relied upon were not disclosed to the petitioner, denying them the opportunity to refute the allegations. - The Court observed that the respondents' actions, such as scheduling a personal hearing before the petitioner had a chance to respond fully, indicated a lack of procedural fairness. This, coupled with the failure to provide essential documents and information to the petitioner, reinforced the perception of predetermined action. - Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
