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...
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in relation to the period of limitation under tax laws like the Central Excise Act and the APGST Act. The Supreme Court has held that where the special law restricts the additional period for condonation of delay, it effectively excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication. Section 107 of the APGST Act prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals and restricts the condonable period to 30 days. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond 30 days u/s 107(4) of the APGST Act. The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the applicability of Section 29(2) and the exclusion of Section 5 in such cases.
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in relation to the period of limitation under tax laws like the Central Excise Act and the APGST Act. The Supreme Court has held that where the special law restricts the additional period for condonation of delay, it effectively excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication. Section 107 of the APGST Act prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals and restricts the condonable period to 30 days. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond 30 days u/s 107(4) of the APGST Act. The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the applicability of Section 29(2) and the exclusion of Section 5 in such cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
