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 sought regular bail in case involving alleged wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed using fictitious invoices from non-existent/suspicious firms. As per Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of HGST/CGST Act, issuing invoice without supply or availing ITC using such invoice, where tax evaded or ITC wrongly availed exceeds Rs. 500 lakhs, is punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment and fine. Show cause notice u/s 74(1) issued to petitioner is yet to be adjudicated upon to determine exact tax liability. Determination of tax liability is subject to challenge before tribunals/courts and does not fall within criminal court's realm. Another firm also issued notice jointly with petitioner, whose liability may reduce petitioner's liability. Considering maximum 5 years punishment u/s 132 and pending adjudication of tax liability, petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on executing personal bonds with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50 lakhs each, surrendering passport and not leaving country without court's permission during trial.
Petitioner sought regular bail in case involving alleged wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed using fictitious invoices from non-existent/suspicious firms. As per Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of HGST/CGST Act, issuing invoice without supply or availing ITC using such invoice, where tax evaded or ITC wrongly availed exceeds Rs. 500 lakhs, is punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment and fine. Show cause notice u/s 74(1) issued to petitioner is yet to be adjudicated upon to determine exact tax liability. Determination of tax liability is subject to challenge before tribunals/courts and does not fall within criminal court's realm. Another firm also issued notice jointly with petitioner, whose liability may reduce petitioner's liability. Considering maximum 5 years punishment u/s 132 and pending adjudication of tax liability, petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on executing personal bonds with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50 lakhs each, surrendering passport and not leaving country without court's permission during trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
