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...
Refund of the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Refund of the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.