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 set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
