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 held that the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to a deceased sole proprietor is non-est in law. A sole proprietorship concern's identity is not distinct from the sole proprietor. Since the sole proprietor, Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co., has expired, the SCN was issued to a non-existent person. While the legal representative or any person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business is liable to pay the dues, the SCN should have been issued to them, not the deceased taxpayer. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in Unnikrishnan R case, the court set aside the impugned SCN but clarified that the respondents can issue a notice to the legal representative or any other person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business.
The court held that the show cause notice (SCN) issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to a deceased sole proprietor is non-est in law. A sole proprietorship concern's identity is not distinct from the sole proprietor. Since the sole proprietor, Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta of M/s S.K. Gupta & Co., has expired, the SCN was issued to a non-existent person. While the legal representative or any person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business is liable to pay the dues, the SCN should have been issued to them, not the deceased taxpayer. Relying on the Madras High Court's decision in Unnikrishnan R case, the court set aside the impugned SCN but clarified that the respondents can issue a notice to the legal representative or any other person carrying on the deceased taxpayer's business.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
