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 assessment order and summary in Form DRC-07 for wrongfully claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of four motor cars, which was ineligible u/s 17(5) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was unaware of the notices due to the introduction of a new "View Additional Notices and Orders" feature on the GST portal, which was not adequately communicated, resulting in a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had purchased four motor cars for passenger service and mistakenly claimed ITC on these purchases, which was not permissible as the vehicles were intended for personal use. The petitioner voluntarily reversed the wrongly availed ITC in their March 2023 return before the financial year's end. However, the respondent passed the assessment order after issuing pre-show cause notice and show cause notice. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, providing the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The petitioner challenged the assessment order and summary in Form DRC-07 for wrongfully claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchase of four motor cars, which was ineligible u/s 17(5) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was unaware of the notices due to the introduction of a new "View Additional Notices and Orders" feature on the GST portal, which was not adequately communicated, resulting in a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had purchased four motor cars for passenger service and mistakenly claimed ITC on these purchases, which was not permissible as the vehicles were intended for personal use. The petitioner voluntarily reversed the wrongly availed ITC in their March 2023 return before the financial year's end. However, the respondent passed the assessment order after issuing pre-show cause notice and show cause notice. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, providing the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
