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...
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
