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 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
