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 dismissed the petition, holding that it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all submissions before the appellate authority, which would undoubtedly consider and pass appropriate orders. The Division Bench had protected the petitioner from recovery proceedings on the ground that the entire IGST amount had already been paid. According to Section 77 of the GST Act, if a registered person has paid Central or State Tax and is subsequently held liable for Inter-State GST, the wrongly deposited amount would be refunded, allowing payment as per the authorities' determination. This aspect can be duly verified by the first appellate authority.
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all submissions before the appellate authority, which would undoubtedly consider and pass appropriate orders. The Division Bench had protected the petitioner from recovery proceedings on the ground that the entire IGST amount had already been paid. According to Section 77 of the GST Act, if a registered person has paid Central or State Tax and is subsequently held liable for Inter-State GST, the wrongly deposited amount would be refunded, allowing payment as per the authorities' determination. This aspect can be duly verified by the first appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
