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 payments made under CGST Act were coerced, not voluntary self-ascertainment under Section 74(5). Evidence showed statements were recorded and deposits made under duress, with implicit threats of arrest. The timing of payments - one made after summons issuance and another during Bengaluru appearance - indicated coercion. Court rejected appellant's argument that respondent's affidavit challenging statements was belated, noting one-week gap was not fatal. Finding the recovery contrary to law, HC upheld single judge's order directing refund with interest. The cumulative facts demonstrated clear pattern of threat and coercion, invalidating both recorded statements and subsequent payments. Appeal dismissed.
HC determined that payments made under CGST Act were coerced, not voluntary self-ascertainment under Section 74(5). Evidence showed statements were recorded and deposits made under duress, with implicit threats of arrest. The timing of payments - one made after summons issuance and another during Bengaluru appearance - indicated coercion. Court rejected appellant's argument that respondent's affidavit challenging statements was belated, noting one-week gap was not fatal. Finding the recovery contrary to law, HC upheld single judge's order directing refund with interest. The cumulative facts demonstrated clear pattern of threat and coercion, invalidating both recorded statements and subsequent payments. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
