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 appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
