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 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
