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 considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
