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 HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
