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 issues raised by the petitioner regarding the reasons for transporting goods in a different vehicle and the expiry of the e-way bill should have been considered by the competent authorities before imposing a penalty u/s 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts. If there was no attempt to evade tax and the discrepancies were beyond the petitioner's control, this should have been considered by the original and Appellate Authorities. Although the petitioner may be justified in challenging the Appellate Authority's order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112, the High Court may not entertain the challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 since adjudication involves disputed questions of fact. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order is quashed.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the reasons for transporting goods in a different vehicle and the expiry of the e-way bill should have been considered by the competent authorities before imposing a penalty u/s 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts. If there was no attempt to evade tax and the discrepancies were beyond the petitioner's control, this should have been considered by the original and Appellate Authorities. Although the petitioner may be justified in challenging the Appellate Authority's order due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal u/s 112, the High Court may not entertain the challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 since adjudication involves disputed questions of fact. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the Appellate Authority, who shall pass fresh orders after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order is quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
