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...
Challenge to the State GST authorities demanding input tax credit availed by the petitioner along with interest and penalty for IGST paid on manpower supply services received during 2017-2022. It holds that the impugned show cause notices issued by the State GST authorities are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the same subject matter, barring the State authorities from initiating proceedings u/s 6(2)(b) of the KGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the show cause notices are quashed. However, regarding the challenge to the show cause notice issued by the Central GST authorities, the petitioner is directed to submit a reply with relevant documents, which the authorities must consider in accordance with law, considering provisions like Section 13(3)(C) and Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 211/5/24-GST. The petition is partially allowed.
Challenge to the State GST authorities demanding input tax credit availed by the petitioner along with interest and penalty for IGST paid on manpower supply services received during 2017-2022. It holds that the impugned show cause notices issued by the State GST authorities are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the same subject matter, barring the State authorities from initiating proceedings u/s 6(2)(b) of the KGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the show cause notices are quashed. However, regarding the challenge to the show cause notice issued by the Central GST authorities, the petitioner is directed to submit a reply with relevant documents, which the authorities must consider in accordance with law, considering provisions like Section 13(3)(C) and Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 211/5/24-GST. The petition is partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
