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 dismissed the petition seeking a declaration that the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that u/r 86A(1) of the OGST Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, being higher in rank than an Assistant Commissioner, had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders relating to State GST. The court clarified that the circular issued by the Government of India on 02.11.2021 is applicable only to Central GST and not State GST unless adopted by the State Government through a declaration, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the claim of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking a declaration that the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that u/r 86A(1) of the OGST Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, being higher in rank than an Assistant Commissioner, had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders relating to State GST. The court clarified that the circular issued by the Government of India on 02.11.2021 is applicable only to Central GST and not State GST unless adopted by the State Government through a declaration, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the claim of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
