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 HC granted bail to the accused petitioner who was charged with creating fake firms, issuing invoices, and passing on input tax credit in violation of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The HC found that the prosecution heavily relied on statements recorded u/s 70, but failed to include those individuals as witnesses, depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine. Additionally, despite filing the complaint, the Department could not determine the amount of input tax credit claimed by beneficiaries after over a year of investigation. The HC noted that once a complaint is filed, no further evidence can be used against the accused. Considering the maximum punishment of five years and the accused's custody of five months, the HC allowed the bail application subject to conditions.
The HC granted bail to the accused petitioner who was charged with creating fake firms, issuing invoices, and passing on input tax credit in violation of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The HC found that the prosecution heavily relied on statements recorded u/s 70, but failed to include those individuals as witnesses, depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine. Additionally, despite filing the complaint, the Department could not determine the amount of input tax credit claimed by beneficiaries after over a year of investigation. The HC noted that once a complaint is filed, no further evidence can be used against the accused. Considering the maximum punishment of five years and the accused's custody of five months, the HC allowed the bail application subject to conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
