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...
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum penalty u/s 129. Officer should have imposed penalty u/s 122(1)(xiv) only. Provisions of Section 129 do not authorize imposition of tax/penalty u/s 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) in cases of minor discrepancies; such penalty can be imposed only for violations leading to tax evasion, intent to evade tax, or repeated violations. In other cases, penalties u/ss 122 and 126 to be imposed. In present case, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 122(1)(xiv) can be imposed. On payment of penalty, bank guarantee to be released.
Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting goods without revalidating e-way bill. However, once plausible explanation provided by transporter/assessee and no attempt to evade tax found, proceedings should not culminate in maximum penalty u/s 129. Officer should have imposed penalty u/s 122(1)(xiv) only. Provisions of Section 129 do not authorize imposition of tax/penalty u/s 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) in cases of minor discrepancies; such penalty can be imposed only for violations leading to tax evasion, intent to evade tax, or repeated violations. In other cases, penalties u/ss 122 and 126 to be imposed. In present case, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 122(1)(xiv) can be imposed. On payment of penalty, bank guarantee to be released.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
