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 held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when requested. The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 for being contrary to Sections 73 and 75(4), and Rule 142(1)(a). However, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate de novo proceedings u/s 73 for the relevant financial year.
The High Court held that the Summary of Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing tax determination cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017. The impugned order was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, violating the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) which requires granting an opportunity of hearing when requested. The court quashed the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 for being contrary to Sections 73 and 75(4), and Rule 142(1)(a). However, liberty was granted to the authorities to initiate de novo proceedings u/s 73 for the relevant financial year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
