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 examined the recovery of wrongly availed credit with penalty for wrongful availment during transition to GST regime. The petitioner's branches were not registered, and there was no correlation between invoices and claims made. The Court analyzed the registration status u/r 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows exemption granted through a 2010 notification. The petitioner produced a centralized registration certificate covering various branches. The correlation between claims and invoices was remanded to the original authority for verification after setting aside the orders. The authorities were directed to determine credit eligibility after verifying branch registration coverage. The writ petition was disposed of through remand.
The High Court examined the recovery of wrongly availed credit with penalty for wrongful availment during transition to GST regime. The petitioner's branches were not registered, and there was no correlation between invoices and claims made. The Court analyzed the registration status u/r 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows exemption granted through a 2010 notification. The petitioner produced a centralized registration certificate covering various branches. The correlation between claims and invoices was remanded to the original authority for verification after setting aside the orders. The authorities were directed to determine credit eligibility after verifying branch registration coverage. The writ petition was disposed of through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
