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 cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time limitation. The respondent claimed that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal, and the petitioner's appeal was time-barred. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as they would continue their businesses and supply goods and services. The Court acknowledged that most small-scale entrepreneurs are uneducated and unaccustomed to handling emails and advanced technologies, despite providing email IDs during registration. The Court emphasized that the object of any government should be to promote trade, not curtail it. The method adopted by the department is likened to strangulating the neck of small-scale entrepreneurs, as cancellation of registration amounts to capital punishment for traders. The Court expects the GST department to amend relevant provisions, considering the consequences on traders, and to find modalities for conveying show cause notices via SMS and regional languages.
The High Court addressed the issue of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns and the rejection of an appeal on the ground of time limitation. The respondent claimed that the statute prescribes a specific limitation period of 90 days to file an appeal, and the petitioner's appeal was time-barred. The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners out of the Goods and Service Tax regime, as they would continue their businesses and supply goods and services. The Court acknowledged that most small-scale entrepreneurs are uneducated and unaccustomed to handling emails and advanced technologies, despite providing email IDs during registration. The Court emphasized that the object of any government should be to promote trade, not curtail it. The method adopted by the department is likened to strangulating the neck of small-scale entrepreneurs, as cancellation of registration amounts to capital punishment for traders. The Court expects the GST department to amend relevant provisions, considering the consequences on traders, and to find modalities for conveying show cause notices via SMS and regional languages.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
