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 dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a "proper officer" and "adjudicating authority" under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a proper officer u/s 5(1) and 5(3) read with Section 2(91) of the Act, and as an adjudicating authority u/s 2(4) (excluding the Commissioner), the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass an order for cancellation of GST registration. Consequently, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, being a proper officer and adjudicating authority under the Act. The court allowed the review application in part, modifying its earlier judgment to hold that an appeal lies before the Commissioner against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
The High Court dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a "proper officer" and "adjudicating authority" under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a proper officer u/s 5(1) and 5(3) read with Section 2(91) of the Act, and as an adjudicating authority u/s 2(4) (excluding the Commissioner), the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass an order for cancellation of GST registration. Consequently, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, being a proper officer and adjudicating authority under the Act. The court allowed the review application in part, modifying its earlier judgment to hold that an appeal lies before the Commissioner against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
