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 petitioner was denied input tax credit as the alleged supplier did not provide any goods, violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order omitted outward and inward e-way bills from the accounts. The HC held that the existence of the supplier is a disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The adequacy of evidence also cannot be examined under this provision. The HC rejected the challenge to the assessment order but permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to compliance with conditions like pre-deposit, and directed disposal of such appeal after reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner was denied input tax credit as the alleged supplier did not provide any goods, violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order omitted outward and inward e-way bills from the accounts. The HC held that the existence of the supplier is a disputed question of fact that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The adequacy of evidence also cannot be examined under this provision. The HC rejected the challenge to the assessment order but permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to compliance with conditions like pre-deposit, and directed disposal of such appeal after reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
