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...
Petitioner is owner of goods being transported as stock transfer from Orissa branch to Kanpur. HC held that when goods were intercepted, requisite documents under GST Act were accompanied and no discrepancy found regarding quantity, except in e-way bill transferee place was mentioned as Ghaziabad while in tax invoice it was Kanpur. As petitioner is consignor and consignee, being stock transfer, petitioner ought to have been treated as owner. Following SC judgment in Arviva Industries case and HC's own judgment in Riya Traders case, authorities were not justified in not recognizing petitioner as owner evident from record. Impugned orders quashed, petition allowed.
Petitioner is owner of goods being transported as stock transfer from Orissa branch to Kanpur. HC held that when goods were intercepted, requisite documents under GST Act were accompanied and no discrepancy found regarding quantity, except in e-way bill transferee place was mentioned as Ghaziabad while in tax invoice it was Kanpur. As petitioner is consignor and consignee, being stock transfer, petitioner ought to have been treated as owner. Following SC judgment in Arviva Industries case and HC's own judgment in Riya Traders case, authorities were not justified in not recognizing petitioner as owner evident from record. Impugned orders quashed, petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
