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...
Respondent no. 2, an improper officer, substantially conducted investigation, inspection, search, seizure, and recorded statements against the petitioner. Respondent no. 1, the proper officer, issued a show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST Act based on the investigation by respondent no. 2. The HC held that only a proper officer can investigate evasion of GST, conduct inspection, search, seizure, and arrest, failing which it is invalid. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice based on the 'borrowed satisfaction' of respondent no. 2. The impugned show cause notice issued by respondent no. 1 was set aside, and respondent no. 1 was directed to refund Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Respondent no. 2, an improper officer, substantially conducted investigation, inspection, search, seizure, and recorded statements against the petitioner. Respondent no. 1, the proper officer, issued a show cause notice u/s 74 of the CGST Act based on the investigation by respondent no. 2. The HC held that only a proper officer can investigate evasion of GST, conduct inspection, search, seizure, and arrest, failing which it is invalid. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice based on the 'borrowed satisfaction' of respondent no. 2. The impugned show cause notice issued by respondent no. 1 was set aside, and respondent no. 1 was directed to refund Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
