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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Reversal of ITC - The High Court found that certain findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were outside the scope of the allegations in the show-cause notice. The authority had admitted that the appellant made payment of tax to the supplier against the transaction, but failed to remit the tax to the State exchequer. However, the court deemed it arbitrary to penalize the appellant without first conducting an enquiry with the supplier. - The Court reiterated the conditions prescribed in Section 16 (2) of the Act for a dealer to be eligible to avail credit of any input tax. - The Court highlighted the importance of action against the selling dealer before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit. It emphasized that unless exceptional circumstances exist, proceedings should be initiated against the supplier first.
Reversal of ITC - The High Court found that certain findings recorded by the adjudicating authority were outside the scope of the allegations in the show-cause notice. The authority had admitted that the appellant made payment of tax to the supplier against the transaction, but failed to remit the tax to the State exchequer. However, the court deemed it arbitrary to penalize the appellant without first conducting an enquiry with the supplier. - The Court reiterated the conditions prescribed in Section 16 (2) of the Act for a dealer to be eligible to avail credit of any input tax. - The Court highlighted the importance of action against the selling dealer before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit. It emphasized that unless exceptional circumstances exist, proceedings should be initiated against the supplier first.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
