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 the initial cash seizure by state GST officers was unlawful, lacking statutory authority under CGST/SGST Act. The subsequent transfer of seized funds to Income Tax Department under Section 132A of IT Act could not legitimize the original illegal seizure. The court emphasized constitutional principles under Articles 265 and 300A protecting against unauthorized property expropriation and taxation. Neither GST Department nor Income Tax Department could retain the seized cash prior to completing their respective proceedings. The ruling reinforces fundamental constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action in tax enforcement matters. Appeal resolved with direction to release seized funds pending completion of formal proceedings.
HC determined the initial cash seizure by state GST officers was unlawful, lacking statutory authority under CGST/SGST Act. The subsequent transfer of seized funds to Income Tax Department under Section 132A of IT Act could not legitimize the original illegal seizure. The court emphasized constitutional principles under Articles 265 and 300A protecting against unauthorized property expropriation and taxation. Neither GST Department nor Income Tax Department could retain the seized cash prior to completing their respective proceedings. The ruling reinforces fundamental constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action in tax enforcement matters. Appeal resolved with direction to release seized funds pending completion of formal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
