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 quashed the authority's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used in show cause notice under CGST Act. The court emphasized that when third-party statements are relied upon in quasi-judicial proceedings, the fundamental right to cross-examine flows from Section 75(4) of CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court held that unilateral statements made without providing opportunity for cross-examination cannot be justified under rule of law. The impugned order (Ext.P3) was set aside with directions to permit petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements were referenced in show cause notice while continuing the proceedings.
HC quashed the authority's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used in show cause notice under CGST Act. The court emphasized that when third-party statements are relied upon in quasi-judicial proceedings, the fundamental right to cross-examine flows from Section 75(4) of CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The court held that unilateral statements made without providing opportunity for cross-examination cannot be justified under rule of law. The impugned order (Ext.P3) was set aside with directions to permit petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements were referenced in show cause notice while continuing the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
