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...
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
