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 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Order-in-Original and held that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 against the Order-in-Original. The Court observed that it does not generally entertain writ petitions in revenue matters where the petitioner has a statutory remedy available. The Court found that there was no total violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Order-in-Original and held that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 against the Order-in-Original. The Court observed that it does not generally entertain writ petitions in revenue matters where the petitioner has a statutory remedy available. The Court found that there was no total violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.