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...
HC declined to intervene in challenge against ITC blocking u/r 86A(1) of Kerala GST Rules and show cause notice u/s 74 of CGST/KSGST Act. Court determined allegations of fraudulent transactions using fake invoices and supply without actual movement of goods involved disputed factual matters unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedies before designated authorities. The existence of specific allegations regarding fraudulent conduct and fake invoices placed the matter outside scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction, necessitating resolution through prescribed administrative channels.
HC declined to intervene in challenge against ITC blocking u/r 86A(1) of Kerala GST Rules and show cause notice u/s 74 of CGST/KSGST Act. Court determined allegations of fraudulent transactions using fake invoices and supply without actual movement of goods involved disputed factual matters unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedies before designated authorities. The existence of specific allegations regarding fraudulent conduct and fake invoices placed the matter outside scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction, necessitating resolution through prescribed administrative channels.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
