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 petition challenging the show cause notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found no justification for alleging suppression or invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was based on findings from investigations after the audit report. The petitioner's statements accepting its status as a payment aggregator were considered relevant. The court held that at the show cause notice stage, judicial review is extremely narrow, and defences can be raised in response. Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, which were not established here. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notice and raise all defences.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found no justification for alleging suppression or invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notice was based on findings from investigations after the audit report. The petitioner's statements accepting its status as a payment aggregator were considered relevant. The court held that at the show cause notice stage, judicial review is extremely narrow, and defences can be raised in response. Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction, which were not established here. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notice and raise all defences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
