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 reviewed a challenge to an assessment order, focusing on the violation of natural justice principles and the issue of input tax credit entitlement due to transactions with a non-existent supplier. The Court found that the respondent's conclusion about fake invoices lacked supporting details for the petitioner to counter. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation like lorry receipts and weighment slips, impacting the fulfillment of Section 16(2)(b) requirements. The Court ordered reconsideration with the petitioner agreeing to remit 20% of the disputed tax demand for a remand, subject to existing credits. The impugned order was set aside, contingent on the petitioner remitting 20% of the disputed tax demand within three weeks.
The High Court reviewed a challenge to an assessment order, focusing on the violation of natural justice principles and the issue of input tax credit entitlement due to transactions with a non-existent supplier. The Court found that the respondent's conclusion about fake invoices lacked supporting details for the petitioner to counter. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation like lorry receipts and weighment slips, impacting the fulfillment of Section 16(2)(b) requirements. The Court ordered reconsideration with the petitioner agreeing to remit 20% of the disputed tax demand for a remand, subject to existing credits. The impugned order was set aside, contingent on the petitioner remitting 20% of the disputed tax demand within three weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
