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 granted relief to the petitioner regarding the cancellation of GST registration due to non-submission of reply to the show cause notice (SCN). The court held that non-submission of reply to the SCN cannot be the sole ground for cancellation of registration. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's registration did not provide any reason other than the failure to respond to the SCN. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, entitling the petitioner to the same relief granted in the case of Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India, where the court ruled that the non-submission of reply to the SCN cannot justify cancellation of registration.
The High Court granted relief to the petitioner regarding the cancellation of GST registration due to non-submission of reply to the show cause notice (SCN). The court held that non-submission of reply to the SCN cannot be the sole ground for cancellation of registration. The impugned order cancelling the petitioner's registration did not provide any reason other than the failure to respond to the SCN. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, entitling the petitioner to the same relief granted in the case of Technosum India Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Union of India, where the court ruled that the non-submission of reply to the SCN cannot justify cancellation of registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
