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...
Validity of input tax credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the UP GST Act hinges on compliance with specified conditions to avoid double taxation. The burden lies on the dealer to prove fulfillment of conditions for claiming ITC. Merely producing tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments is insufficient. Proof of actual physical movement of goods, genuineness of transportation, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of delivery, toll receipts, and filing of GSTR 2A is necessary. The Supreme Court has held that the primary burden is on the dealer to furnish details like selling dealer, vehicle number, freight payment, delivery acknowledgment, tax invoices, and payment particulars to establish actual goods movement. Submitting only invoices, e-way bills, or payment details is inadequate. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders denying ITC for non-compliance with statutory conditions.
Validity of input tax credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the UP GST Act hinges on compliance with specified conditions to avoid double taxation. The burden lies on the dealer to prove fulfillment of conditions for claiming ITC. Merely producing tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments is insufficient. Proof of actual physical movement of goods, genuineness of transportation, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of delivery, toll receipts, and filing of GSTR 2A is necessary. The Supreme Court has held that the primary burden is on the dealer to furnish details like selling dealer, vehicle number, freight payment, delivery acknowledgment, tax invoices, and payment particulars to establish actual goods movement. Submitting only invoices, e-way bills, or payment details is inadequate. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders denying ITC for non-compliance with statutory conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
