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 petition challenging the show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 issued by the respondent authority in relation to the refund of integrated taxes for the period FY 2018-19 to 2020-21. The court held that Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules, introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, allows recredit of input tax credit pertaining to the amount paid back for contravention of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The respondent authority initiated an independent investigation against the petitioner regarding the refund of integrated tax for the period in question, issuing the first show-cause notice on 03.04.2024. The court observed that there is a separate period of limitation of three years from the date of erroneous refund, and the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch had started an investigation against the petitioner for the FY 2017-18 to 2020-2021 before issuing the show-cause notice after scrutinizing all documents. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 issued by the respondent authority in relation to the refund of integrated taxes for the period FY 2018-19 to 2020-21. The court held that Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules, introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, allows recredit of input tax credit pertaining to the amount paid back for contravention of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The respondent authority initiated an independent investigation against the petitioner regarding the refund of integrated tax for the period in question, issuing the first show-cause notice on 03.04.2024. The court observed that there is a separate period of limitation of three years from the date of erroneous refund, and the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch had started an investigation against the petitioner for the FY 2017-18 to 2020-2021 before issuing the show-cause notice after scrutinizing all documents. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned show-cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
