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 High Court examined the challenge to the assessment and demand orders, validity of the show cause notice (SCN), discrepancy in the assessment amount compared to the proposal, and violation of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The court held that the SCN covered the proposal for assessing tax, interest, and penalty. The assessment amount matched the total proposal under nine heads mentioned in the SCN and final order. The court rejected the contention of violating Section 75(7). Finding no reason to interfere with the writ court's order, the High Court affirmed it with a slight modification, requiring payment of 7.5% of the disputed tax instead of 10% within three months. Upon such payment, the assessing authority shall proceed with re-assessment, provide an opportunity of being heard, and make a final decision on merits and in accordance with the law. Non-compliance with the modified condition will result in dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court examined the challenge to the assessment and demand orders, validity of the show cause notice (SCN), discrepancy in the assessment amount compared to the proposal, and violation of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The court held that the SCN covered the proposal for assessing tax, interest, and penalty. The assessment amount matched the total proposal under nine heads mentioned in the SCN and final order. The court rejected the contention of violating Section 75(7). Finding no reason to interfere with the writ court's order, the High Court affirmed it with a slight modification, requiring payment of 7.5% of the disputed tax instead of 10% within three months. Upon such payment, the assessing authority shall proceed with re-assessment, provide an opportunity of being heard, and make a final decision on merits and in accordance with the law. Non-compliance with the modified condition will result in dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
