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 petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
