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 court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for transfer of investigation from State authority to Central authority or vice-versa. The object of Section 6(2)(b) is to avoid multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. Once the State authority initiates action, it would be the proper officer to conduct further proceedings. The Central Tax Officer cannot initiate proceedings if the State Tax Officer has already commenced proceedings. The word "subject-matter" means the nature of proceedings. If one authority has initiated proceedings, the other cannot initiate proceedings for the same subject matter. Allowing such action would violate Section 6(2)(b). The court quashed the Blocked Credit Ledger and summons issued by the Central authority as the State authority had already initiated proceedings. The petition was allowed.
The court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for transfer of investigation from State authority to Central authority or vice-versa. The object of Section 6(2)(b) is to avoid multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. Once the State authority initiates action, it would be the proper officer to conduct further proceedings. The Central Tax Officer cannot initiate proceedings if the State Tax Officer has already commenced proceedings. The word "subject-matter" means the nature of proceedings. If one authority has initiated proceedings, the other cannot initiate proceedings for the same subject matter. Allowing such action would violate Section 6(2)(b). The court quashed the Blocked Credit Ledger and summons issued by the Central authority as the State authority had already initiated proceedings. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
