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 High Court addressed the issue of GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government. Referring to a Division Bench Judgment, it was held that there should be no recovery of GST on royalty until a decision by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court addressed the issue of GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government. Referring to a Division Bench Judgment, it was held that there should be no recovery of GST on royalty until a decision by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.