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 ruled against the promoter's attempt to deduct GST loss of Rs. 11,40,376/- from the refund amount following apartment cancellation. The court found no contractual provision in the Sale and Construction Agreements for GST deduction upon cancellation. The promoter's initial communication only mentioned 10% cancellation charges, revealing GST loss deduction only after the allottee refused to purchase an alternative apartment. The promoter failed to prove double GST payment for the same apartment. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing withdrawal of pre-deposit amount with accrued interest, directing the allottee to provide biweekly updates on refund application progress. Appeal dismissed.
HC ruled against the promoter's attempt to deduct GST loss of Rs. 11,40,376/- from the refund amount following apartment cancellation. The court found no contractual provision in the Sale and Construction Agreements for GST deduction upon cancellation. The promoter's initial communication only mentioned 10% cancellation charges, revealing GST loss deduction only after the allottee refused to purchase an alternative apartment. The promoter failed to prove double GST payment for the same apartment. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing withdrawal of pre-deposit amount with accrued interest, directing the allottee to provide biweekly updates on refund application progress. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
