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 case pertains to a violation of the principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner's right to an opportunity for personal hearing, as provided under the law, was violated. The court held that Section 75 of the RGST Act/CGST Act contains provisions related to tax determination. Sub-section (2) states that if an Appellate Authority, Tribunal, or Court concludes that the notice issued u/s 74(1) is unsustainable due to non-establishment of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued u/s 73(1). The respondents admitted that although they intended to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and uploaded notices, the petitioner claimed these were not reflected on their GSTIN Portal. The court found the statutory mandate was not complied with, and impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the competent authority to provide an opportunity for personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
The case pertains to a violation of the principles of natural justice, wherein the petitioner's right to an opportunity for personal hearing, as provided under the law, was violated. The court held that Section 75 of the RGST Act/CGST Act contains provisions related to tax determination. Sub-section (2) states that if an Appellate Authority, Tribunal, or Court concludes that the notice issued u/s 74(1) is unsustainable due to non-establishment of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued u/s 73(1). The respondents admitted that although they intended to grant an opportunity for personal hearing and uploaded notices, the petitioner claimed these were not reflected on their GSTIN Portal. The court found the statutory mandate was not complied with, and impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the competent authority to provide an opportunity for personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
