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 addressed the issue of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit where remittances were received in a different branch's bank account. The Court held that establishments should be treated as distinct persons under the CGST Act, even if they are part of the same entity. The petitioner had initially not provided bank account details for its Delhi branch but later updated them, including a Bangalore bank account where remittances were credited. The Court observed that these remittances were clearly connected to services rendered by the Delhi branch, and the objection raised was overly technical and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the CGST Act contemplates entities having multiple establishments across states, and Section 25(4) and (5) override the principle of branch offices not being separate juridical entities. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
The High Court addressed the issue of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit where remittances were received in a different branch's bank account. The Court held that establishments should be treated as distinct persons under the CGST Act, even if they are part of the same entity. The petitioner had initially not provided bank account details for its Delhi branch but later updated them, including a Bangalore bank account where remittances were credited. The Court observed that these remittances were clearly connected to services rendered by the Delhi branch, and the objection raised was overly technical and unsustainable. The Court clarified that the CGST Act contemplates entities having multiple establishments across states, and Section 25(4) and (5) override the principle of branch offices not being separate juridical entities. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
