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 rejected the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the SCN, which emanated from a GST audit report after examining records for specific periods. The objection regarding the officer's lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's business in other States was misconceived. The Court held that officers appointed u/ss 4, 5, and 6 of the CGST Act have the same powers, and a State GST Officer is authorized as a proper officer under the Act. Once an SCN is issued by a State GST Officer, no other officer from another State can initiate proceedings regarding tax evasion, wrongful input tax credit, or other issues u/s 74. The Chandigarh authority had the power to issue the SCN concerning the company's dealings in other States, and there was no jurisdictional error. The petitioner is free to raise objections and arguments in its reply to the SCN's contents. The petition was dismissed.
The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner failed to submit a reply to the SCN, which emanated from a GST audit report after examining records for specific periods. The objection regarding the officer's lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner's business in other States was misconceived. The Court held that officers appointed u/ss 4, 5, and 6 of the CGST Act have the same powers, and a State GST Officer is authorized as a proper officer under the Act. Once an SCN is issued by a State GST Officer, no other officer from another State can initiate proceedings regarding tax evasion, wrongful input tax credit, or other issues u/s 74. The Chandigarh authority had the power to issue the SCN concerning the company's dealings in other States, and there was no jurisdictional error. The petitioner is free to raise objections and arguments in its reply to the SCN's contents. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
