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 set aside penalty orders under GST Act Section 129(1) and allowed refund application. The appellate authority's dismissal was deemed unjustified as there was no clear tax evasion intent. While the e-way bill showed dispatch from Durgapur without full supplier details, the court found this omission insufficient to establish evasion, noting the goods moved in the same vehicle (WB 41D 1508) as per both e-way bill and tax invoice. The court emphasized that acceptance of dispatch details in the e-way bill portal's Part-A submission indicated compliance, and mere incomplete supplier information didn't constitute tax evasion intent. The court directed authorities to process refund applications as per law.
HC set aside penalty orders under GST Act Section 129(1) and allowed refund application. The appellate authority's dismissal was deemed unjustified as there was no clear tax evasion intent. While the e-way bill showed dispatch from Durgapur without full supplier details, the court found this omission insufficient to establish evasion, noting the goods moved in the same vehicle (WB 41D 1508) as per both e-way bill and tax invoice. The court emphasized that acceptance of dispatch details in the e-way bill portal's Part-A submission indicated compliance, and mere incomplete supplier information didn't constitute tax evasion intent. The court directed authorities to process refund applications as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
