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...
Wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit, wrongful availment of IGST refund under Advance Authorisation scheme. Constitutional validity of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 questioned, whether ultra-vires the CGST Act provisions. Held that the challenged order is dated 21.02.2024, and the challenge is on merits. Appeal lies before the Appellate Authority u/s 107 of the CGST Act to examine questions of fact and law. The petition regarding the impugned orders is not entertained. Regarding initiation of proceedings u/s 74 instead of Section 73 of the CGST Act, the Appellate Authority can examine the questions of law while examining the facts. The challenge to the notification dated 31.03.2023 does not arise as no notice was issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act. The present petition is misconceived and dismissed.
Wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit, wrongful availment of IGST refund under Advance Authorisation scheme. Constitutional validity of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 questioned, whether ultra-vires the CGST Act provisions. Held that the challenged order is dated 21.02.2024, and the challenge is on merits. Appeal lies before the Appellate Authority u/s 107 of the CGST Act to examine questions of fact and law. The petition regarding the impugned orders is not entertained. Regarding initiation of proceedings u/s 74 instead of Section 73 of the CGST Act, the Appellate Authority can examine the questions of law while examining the facts. The challenge to the notification dated 31.03.2023 does not arise as no notice was issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act. The present petition is misconceived and dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
