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 held that the provisions of GST enactments being applicable pan India, the department cannot take a contrary stand to the Supreme Court's ratio in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. versus Union of India. Therefore, the impugned order denying the benefit of refund on account of the Inverted Duty Structure to the petitioner is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order sanctioning the refund to the petitioner within three months, in light of the mentioned orders. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court held that the provisions of GST enactments being applicable pan India, the department cannot take a contrary stand to the Supreme Court's ratio in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. versus Union of India. Therefore, the impugned order denying the benefit of refund on account of the Inverted Duty Structure to the petitioner is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order sanctioning the refund to the petitioner within three months, in light of the mentioned orders. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
