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...
GST Authorities invoked penal provisions under Indian Penal Code against the petitioner without invoking penal provisions of GST Act, despite the alleged offences being covered under GST Act. This was done without obtaining sanction u/s 132(6) of GST Act. The court held that GST Act is a special legislation dealing with GST-related procedures, penalties, and offences. Authorities cannot bypass the prescribed procedure for launching prosecution under GST Act by simply invoking IPC provisions without invoking GST Act provisions, especially when allegations constitute offences covered under GST Act. Doing so would amount to bypassing procedural safeguards like obtaining commissioner's sanction u/s 132(6), prejudicing the petitioner. Allowing authorities to adopt such a course would be an abuse of process of law, which cannot be permitted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, quashing the prosecution launched without following due process under GST Act.
GST Authorities invoked penal provisions under Indian Penal Code against the petitioner without invoking penal provisions of GST Act, despite the alleged offences being covered under GST Act. This was done without obtaining sanction u/s 132(6) of GST Act. The court held that GST Act is a special legislation dealing with GST-related procedures, penalties, and offences. Authorities cannot bypass the prescribed procedure for launching prosecution under GST Act by simply invoking IPC provisions without invoking GST Act provisions, especially when allegations constitute offences covered under GST Act. Doing so would amount to bypassing procedural safeguards like obtaining commissioner's sanction u/s 132(6), prejudicing the petitioner. Allowing authorities to adopt such a course would be an abuse of process of law, which cannot be permitted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, quashing the prosecution launched without following due process under GST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
