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 High Court addressed the issue of parallel proceedings initiated by both State and Central GST Authorities against the petitioner for the same assessment years. For the Financial Year 2017-18, the State GST Authority had initiated actions first, while for the remaining years, the Central GST Authority took the initial steps. The Court directed the Central GST Authority to continue its investigation and proceedings, except for the Financial Year 2017-18, which had already been completed by the State GST Authority, thereby avoiding duplication of proceedings for the same assessment year. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court addressed the issue of parallel proceedings initiated by both State and Central GST Authorities against the petitioner for the same assessment years. For the Financial Year 2017-18, the State GST Authority had initiated actions first, while for the remaining years, the Central GST Authority took the initial steps. The Court directed the Central GST Authority to continue its investigation and proceedings, except for the Financial Year 2017-18, which had already been completed by the State GST Authority, thereby avoiding duplication of proceedings for the same assessment year. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.