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 found a violation of principles of natural justice as the notices were uploaded on the "view additional notices and orders" tab of the GST portal, and the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order pertained to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR-3B return, auto-populated GSTR-2A, and reconciliation of turnover as per the Income Tax return and GSTR-3B return. The tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice. Considering these circumstances, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 9-8-2023 on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and submits a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court found a violation of principles of natural justice as the notices were uploaded on the "view additional notices and orders" tab of the GST portal, and the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order pertained to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR-3B return, auto-populated GSTR-2A, and reconciliation of turnover as per the Income Tax return and GSTR-3B return. The tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner's failure to reply to the show cause notice. Considering these circumstances, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 9-8-2023 on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks and submits a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
