Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment and permits working capital adjustment, while APA margins cannot govern non-covered years...
Treaty benefit, goodwill depreciation and hedging costs: export commission disallowed, while key business deductions and depreciation claims succeeded...
Undisclosed foreign asset classification requires an unexplained source; unrebutted affidavits and corroborative evidence defeated the Black Money Act...
The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are: the retrospective effect of notifications, the time limit prescribed for issuing orders u/s 73(9) based on the due date of filing annual returns u/s 44(1), and the validity of the impugned orders in light of this time limit. The due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2017-18 was extended to 05.02.2020 via notifications. Consequently, the three-year time limit u/s 73(10) for issuing orders ended on 05.02.2023. However, the impugned orders were dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the High Court held that the impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction, being barred by the time limit u/s 73(10). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's frozen accounts were ordered to be de-frozen.
The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are: the retrospective effect of notifications, the time limit prescribed for issuing orders u/s 73(9) based on the due date of filing annual returns u/s 44(1), and the validity of the impugned orders in light of this time limit. The due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2017-18 was extended to 05.02.2020 via notifications. Consequently, the three-year time limit u/s 73(10) for issuing orders ended on 05.02.2023. However, the impugned orders were dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the High Court held that the impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction, being barred by the time limit u/s 73(10). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's frozen accounts were ordered to be de-frozen.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
