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 examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is necessary in each case, applying the functionality test. As the Petitioner had yet to establish the requisite infrastructure when the Advance Ruling Authorities decided, the High Court remanded the matter to the AAR for a fresh ruling considering the Supreme Court's observations, given the limited scope of judicial review on factual matters unless perversity is demonstrated. The AAR and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.
The High Court examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is necessary in each case, applying the functionality test. As the Petitioner had yet to establish the requisite infrastructure when the Advance Ruling Authorities decided, the High Court remanded the matter to the AAR for a fresh ruling considering the Supreme Court's observations, given the limited scope of judicial review on factual matters unless perversity is demonstrated. The AAR and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
