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 examined the legality of penalty imposition u/s...
Penalty imposed for wrongly availing Input Tax Credit but not utilized is unsustainable. Unjustified penalty waived, token penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court examined the legality of penalty imposition u/s 74(1) and 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrongly availed but unutilized Input Tax Credit. The petitioner reversed the amount post show cause notice issuance. Relying on a similar case, it was held that penalties u/s 73(1) and 74(1) apply only if the credit is both availed and utilized for tax payment. The court found the penalty unsustainable and suggested applying penalty u/s 122 of TNGST Act, 2017. Given the circumstances, a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed, and the petition was allowed.
The High Court examined the legality of penalty imposition u/s 74(1) and 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrongly availed but unutilized Input Tax Credit. The petitioner reversed the amount post show cause notice issuance. Relying on a similar case, it was held that penalties u/s 73(1) and 74(1) apply only if the credit is both availed and utilized for tax payment. The court found the penalty unsustainable and suggested applying penalty u/s 122 of TNGST Act, 2017. Given the circumstances, a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
