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...
A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that review cannot be done unless a material error manifestly apparent on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party cannot repeat old arguments under the guise of a review petition. The power of review is distinct from appellate power to correct errors. In the present case, the HC found no error apparent on the record to warrant interference with its earlier order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive original non-relied documents u/s 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2017. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
A review application is maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or (iii) any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court held that review cannot be done unless a material error manifestly apparent on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice. Review proceedings are strictly confined to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A party cannot repeat old arguments under the guise of a review petition. The power of review is distinct from appellate power to correct errors. In the present case, the HC found no error apparent on the record to warrant interference with its earlier order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive original non-relied documents u/s 67(3) of CGST Act and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2017. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
