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 determined that Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax amending Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules operates prospectively from October 9, 2018, not retrospectively from October 23, 2017. The court quashed summons, notices, and recovery proceedings initiated based on retrospective application of the notification. Any quantification of alleged erroneous refunds for periods before October 9, 2018, was held invalid and without jurisdiction. The ruling aligned with previous rectification order in Cosmo Films Limited case which corrected the earlier misinterpretation regarding notification's effective date. The decision establishes clear temporal boundaries for enforcement of amended Rule 96(10).
HC determined that Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax amending Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules operates prospectively from October 9, 2018, not retrospectively from October 23, 2017. The court quashed summons, notices, and recovery proceedings initiated based on retrospective application of the notification. Any quantification of alleged erroneous refunds for periods before October 9, 2018, was held invalid and without jurisdiction. The ruling aligned with previous rectification order in Cosmo Films Limited case which corrected the earlier misinterpretation regarding notification's effective date. The decision establishes clear temporal boundaries for enforcement of amended Rule 96(10).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.