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 petitioner was not served with notices/communications, resulting in their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. As per the proviso to Rule 86B of the GST Rules, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the petitioner, being unaware of the show cause notice, failed to appear for personal hearing before the respondent authority. Consequently, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition through remand, as it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.
The petitioner was not served with notices/communications, resulting in their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. As per the proviso to Rule 86B of the GST Rules, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax amount. However, the petitioner, being unaware of the show cause notice, failed to appear for personal hearing before the respondent authority. Consequently, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order, violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration, allowing the petition through remand, as it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
