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...
In light of the amended Rules 108 and 109 of the GST Rules effective from 26th December 2022, the High Court held that when an appealed order is issued or uploaded on the common portal and can be viewed by the appellate authority, submitting a certified copy of such uploaded order for authenticity becomes insignificant. Therefore, the appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal on the technical ground of non-supply of a certified copy, particularly when the statute does not mandate it. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In light of the amended Rules 108 and 109 of the GST Rules effective from 26th December 2022, the High Court held that when an appealed order is issued or uploaded on the common portal and can be viewed by the appellate authority, submitting a certified copy of such uploaded order for authenticity becomes insignificant. Therefore, the appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal on the technical ground of non-supply of a certified copy, particularly when the statute does not mandate it. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
