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 failed to challenge the matter within statutory provisions and raised the constitutional validity of Section 29(2) under CGST and BGST Acts. The court found the decision in Rohit Enterprises persuasive but not binding. While the facts differed, the hardship was similar to a previous case where the constitutional guarantee to carry out trade and commerce was upheld. No valid ground was raised against the delay in filing an appeal, as Section 30 allows revocation of cancellation within 30 days. The court found no reason to exercise discretionary power or entertain the writ petition testing Section 29(2)'s constitutional validity, as the orders were within statutory boundaries. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner failed to challenge the matter within statutory provisions and raised the constitutional validity of Section 29(2) under CGST and BGST Acts. The court found the decision in Rohit Enterprises persuasive but not binding. While the facts differed, the hardship was similar to a previous case where the constitutional guarantee to carry out trade and commerce was upheld. No valid ground was raised against the delay in filing an appeal, as Section 30 allows revocation of cancellation within 30 days. The court found no reason to exercise discretionary power or entertain the writ petition testing Section 29(2)'s constitutional validity, as the orders were within statutory boundaries. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.