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 upheld confiscation notice issued under Section 130 of TNGST Act regarding transport of gold jewelry. Officials established prima facie evidence of tax evasion through misuse of Rules 138 and 55 of CGST Rules. Court distinguished between Section 129 (seizure) and Section 130 (confiscation), ruling they operate independently despite non-obstante clause in Section 129. Following Synergy Fertichem precedent, authorities demonstrated sufficient grounds beyond mere suspicion for confiscation proceedings. Petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to counter allegations of intentional tax evasion. Authorities' formation of opinion met threshold requirements for invoking Section 130. Petition dismissed, upholding validity of confiscation notice.
HC upheld confiscation notice issued under Section 130 of TNGST Act regarding transport of gold jewelry. Officials established prima facie evidence of tax evasion through misuse of Rules 138 and 55 of CGST Rules. Court distinguished between Section 129 (seizure) and Section 130 (confiscation), ruling they operate independently despite non-obstante clause in Section 129. Following Synergy Fertichem precedent, authorities demonstrated sufficient grounds beyond mere suspicion for confiscation proceedings. Petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation to counter allegations of intentional tax evasion. Authorities' formation of opinion met threshold requirements for invoking Section 130. Petition dismissed, upholding validity of confiscation notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
