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 since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of discharging tax liability in Maharashtra. Regarding the refund claim, the court held that as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, the place of supply shall be both states, and the nature of supply is intra-state proportionate to the value of services rendered in each state. The demand notices were kept in abeyance till disposal of the refund application in accordance with the court's order in related writ petitions.
The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of discharging tax liability in Maharashtra. Regarding the refund claim, the court held that as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, the place of supply shall be both states, and the nature of supply is intra-state proportionate to the value of services rendered in each state. The demand notices were kept in abeyance till disposal of the refund application in accordance with the court's order in related writ petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
