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 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners who were accused of fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating fake forms, forging bills, and showing fictitious transactions through dummy firms. The court held that the allegations prima facie attract offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for availing ITC fraudulently based on false documents and sham transactions, as well as penal provisions under the GST law. While prosecution under two different enactments is permissible as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the court noted that the petitioners had already been prosecuted u/s 132 of the CGST Act for the same allegations and had remained in custody for a substantial period. Considering the overlapping nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioners were not absconding, and their previous custody, the court granted them anticipatory bail.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners who were accused of fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating fake forms, forging bills, and showing fictitious transactions through dummy firms. The court held that the allegations prima facie attract offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for availing ITC fraudulently based on false documents and sham transactions, as well as penal provisions under the GST law. While prosecution under two different enactments is permissible as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the court noted that the petitioners had already been prosecuted u/s 132 of the CGST Act for the same allegations and had remained in custody for a substantial period. Considering the overlapping nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioners were not absconding, and their previous custody, the court granted them anticipatory bail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
