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...
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging an order issued u/s 73(1) of the GST Act. The court noted that the order was appealable u/s 107 of the GST Act. Referring to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy, the court cited the Supreme Court's stance that when statutory remedies are available, writ petitions should not be entertained. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to challenge the order through an appeal, and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's ability to access their email could be addressed in the appellate process. The court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition, hence it was dismissed.
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging an order issued u/s 73(1) of the GST Act. The court noted that the order was appealable u/s 107 of the GST Act. Referring to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy, the court cited the Supreme Court's stance that when statutory remedies are available, writ petitions should not be entertained. The court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to challenge the order through an appeal, and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's ability to access their email could be addressed in the appellate process. The court concluded that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition, hence it was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
