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...
Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled as petitioner had stopped business at registered premises and issued fake invoices without actual supply of goods. Original authority found petitioner not conducting business at registered premises based on landlord's statement that premises were leased out to petitioner for iron and steel business from 2012 to May 2017, but thereafter no business conducted and premises leased to another person unrelated to petitioner. Original authority held details provided during VAT to GST migration were false, warranting cancellation of registration. Appellate authority upheld cancellation. High Court found no reason to interfere with findings, noting petitioner can apply for fresh registration if intending to restart business. Writ petition dismissed.
Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled as petitioner had stopped business at registered premises and issued fake invoices without actual supply of goods. Original authority found petitioner not conducting business at registered premises based on landlord's statement that premises were leased out to petitioner for iron and steel business from 2012 to May 2017, but thereafter no business conducted and premises leased to another person unrelated to petitioner. Original authority held details provided during VAT to GST migration were false, warranting cancellation of registration. Appellate authority upheld cancellation. High Court found no reason to interfere with findings, noting petitioner can apply for fresh registration if intending to restart business. Writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
