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...
In the case of a detention order u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the goods were meant for export and thus qualified for Zero Rate Sale, rendering any levy of tax or penalty without jurisdiction. The High Court held that considering the peculiar facts of the case, where the goods relate to export treated as zero rate u/s 16 of the IGST Act, the petitioner shall submit a copy of GSTR-1 before the appropriate respondent. If GSTR-1 reveals the transaction as a zero rate export sale, integrated taxes ought to be paid or the goods must be exported under Bond or Letter of Undertaking in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. If the petitioner can demonstrate the transaction's inclusion in GSTR-1, the goods shall be provisionally released. However, the petitioner can question the impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2024 by filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to compliance with conditions like payment of pre-deposit. If such an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of within four weeks from the date of filing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
In the case of a detention order u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the goods were meant for export and thus qualified for Zero Rate Sale, rendering any levy of tax or penalty without jurisdiction. The High Court held that considering the peculiar facts of the case, where the goods relate to export treated as zero rate u/s 16 of the IGST Act, the petitioner shall submit a copy of GSTR-1 before the appropriate respondent. If GSTR-1 reveals the transaction as a zero rate export sale, integrated taxes ought to be paid or the goods must be exported under Bond or Letter of Undertaking in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. If the petitioner can demonstrate the transaction's inclusion in GSTR-1, the goods shall be provisionally released. However, the petitioner can question the impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2024 by filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority u/s 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to compliance with conditions like payment of pre-deposit. If such an appeal is filed, it shall be disposed of within four weeks from the date of filing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
