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 ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, and violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court held that Rule 96(10), as inserted by a notification dated 09-10-2018 with effect from 23-10-2017, is ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary, producing absurd results unintended by the legislature. Consequently, the court declared Rule 96(10) unenforceable and quashed any actions or orders against the petitioners based on it. The court directed that no proceedings shall be taken to recover IGST refunded to the petitioners by applying Rule 96(10) for the period between 23-10-2017 and 08-10-2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
