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 held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely on the basis of general queries from random persons, without any record, is difficult to countenance. The petitioner's premises were found to exist, with a signboard bearing the GSTIN, and a photograph in the Field Report established possession at the material time. The petitioner contended that the shop was closed and reopened a few days before inspection due to suspension of GST registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice with documents establishing the existence of the principal place of business since registration. The proper officer shall consider the reply and take an informed decision.
The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely on the basis of general queries from random persons, without any record, is difficult to countenance. The petitioner's premises were found to exist, with a signboard bearing the GSTIN, and a photograph in the Field Report established possession at the material time. The petitioner contended that the shop was closed and reopened a few days before inspection due to suspension of GST registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice with documents establishing the existence of the principal place of business since registration. The proper officer shall consider the reply and take an informed decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
